THE  JAMES  K.  MOFFITT   FUND. 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT    OF 

JAMES    KENNEDY   MOFFITT 

OF  THE   CLASS   OF  '86. 


Accession  No.       U •  >b o O    Class  No . 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/apostlescreeditsOOmcgirich 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 


THE 

APOSTLES'  CREED 

Its  Origin,  Its  Purpose,  and 
Its  Historical  Interpretation 

SL  Hectare,  luitti  Critical  jpotes 

BY 

ARTHUR   CUSHMAN   McGIFFERT 

Washburn  Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York 


V  OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


NEW   YORK 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1902 


A/3 


thomn 

Copyright,  1902, 
By  Charles  Scribner's  Sons. 


Published  January,  1902. 


UNIVERSITY   PRESS   •  JOHN  WILSON 
AND    SON    •    CAMBRIDGE,     U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

THE  lecture  with  which  this  volume  opens 
was  first  given  at  the  Harvard  University 
Summer  School  of  Theology  in  July,  1899.  It 
has  been  given  since  at  the  University  of  Chicago, 
and  a  part  of  it  was  read  at  the  meeting  of  the 
American  Historical  Association  held  in  Detroit 
in  December,  1900.  The  lecture  is  printed  sub- 
stantially in  its  original  form,  though  at  a  few 
points  changes  have  been  made  as  a  result  of  fur- 
ther study.  Its  publication  has  been  deferred 
until  the  present  time  because  it  contains  some 
conclusions  at  variance  with  those  commonly  ac- 
cepted by  modern  scholars,  which  it  seemed  best 
to  withhold  until  the  reasons  for  them  could  be 
stated  in  detail.  Those  reasons  will  be  found 
in  the  critical  notes,  which  fill  the  greater  part 
of  the  volume,  and  contain  discussions  of  the 
most  important  questions  connected  with  the 
origin,  the  text,  the  purpose  and  historical  inter- 
pretation of  the  creed.  Since  the  appearance  last 
year  of  the  final  volume  of  Kattenbusch's  elabo- 


Yi  PREFACE 

rate  monograph  on  the  Apostles'  Creed  I  have 
worked  over  the  whole  subject  again  and  have 
tested  my  conclusions  in  its  light.  As  I  am 
compelled  to  disagree  with  Kattenbusch  at  many 
points  I  wish  to  bear  testimony  here  to  the  value 
of  his  work,  which  is  the  most  exhaustive  treat- 
ment of  the  subject  we  have  and,  in  spite  of  some 
serious  defects  in  method,  will  be  indispensable 
to  all  future  workers  in  this  particular  field. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  notes  deal  largely 
with  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  and  not  with 
the  present  text  of  the  creed.  This  is  due  not 
only  to  the  greater  relative  importance  of  the 
former,  but  also  to  the  fact  that  my  own  inde- 
pendent investigations  have  been  confined  to 
questions  connected  with  the  older  symbol,  and 
I  have  not  cared  to  burden  the  notes  with  second- 
hand results.  The  conclusions  touching  the  origin 
and  history  of  the  present  text  of  the  creed  which 
are  given  in  the  latter  part  of  the  lecture  are 
based  wholly  upon  the  investigations  of  others, 
especially  Caspari  and  Kattenbusch. 

To  my  colleague,  Prof.  James  Everett  Frame, 
my  hearty  thanks  are  due  for  the  valuable  as- 
sistance he  has  rendered  me  in  connection  with 
the  revision  of  the  proof  sheets. 


CONTENTS 

LECTURE 3 

CRITICAL  NOTES: 

I.    The  Text   of  the   Old   Roman    Symbol  in 

the  Fourth  Century 39 

II.    The  Date  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  .     .       46 

III.  The   Original   Text    of  the    Old    Roman 

Symbol 84 

IV.  The   Place    of    Composition    of    the    Old 

Roman  Symbol 101 

V.    The   Purpose   of  the   Old   Roman  Symbol 

and  its  Historical  Interpretation  .     .     105 

VI.    The  Old  Roman  Symbol  and  the  Baptismal 

Formula 175 

VII.    The  Present  Text  of  the  Apostles'  Creed     187 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

A    LECTURE 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 


LIKE  many  another  ancient  document,  the 
Apostles'  Creed  has  had  an  interesting  and 
complicated  history.  The  form  which  we  now 
have  originated  in  western  Europe,  probably  about 
the  sixth  century.  But  the  present  form  is  simply 
an  expansion  of  a  briefer  creed  which  dates  from 
a  much  earlier  period  and  is  commonly  known 
among  scholars  as  the  "  Old  Roman  Symbol." 
Our  study  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  then,  must  con- 
cern itself  largely  with  this  Old  Roman  Symbol. 
Our  sources  for  a  knowledge  of  the  older  creed 
are  fragmentary  and  scattered,  but  they  have 
been  subjected  during  recent  years  to  the  most 
careful  and  elaborate  investigation  and  an  im- 
mense amount  of  new  light  has  been  thrown  upon 
them  with  the  most  gratifying  results.  Few  bet- 
ter illustrations  are  to  be  found  of  the  fruitfulness 
of  modern  historical  and  literary  criticism  than 
the  recent  advances  in  our  knowledge  along  this 
line.  Professor  Caspar i  of  Norway,  who  died  in 
1892,  devoted  years  to  the  collection  and  investi- 
gation of  the  sources,  and  his  minute  and  pains- 


4  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

taking  studies,  published  in  a  number  of  volumes, 
first  brought  the  matter  upon  a  genuinely  scientific 
basis.1  His  work  has  been  taken  up  more  recently 
by  Professor  Kattenbusch  of  Tubingen,  who  has 
published  a  large  work  in  two  volumes,  the  first 
volume  being  devoted  chiefly  to  the  reconstruction 
of  the  text,  and  the  second  to  the  origin  and  in- 
terpretation both  of  the  older  symbol  and  of  the 
present  creed.2  Kattenbusch's  work  is  of  a  most 
exhaustive  character,  but  it  leaves  many  impor- 
tant questions  unanswered,  and  I  am  convinced 
will  have  to  be  corrected  at  many  points,  particu- 
larly in  connection  with  the  origin,  the  purpose, 
and  the  historical  interpretation  of  the  Old  Roman 
Symbol.  A  great  many  more  or  less  elaborate 
pamphlets  appeared  in  Germany  a  few  years  ago 
in  connection  with  the  controversy  touching  the 
use  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  the  services  of  the 
church.  Most  of  them  are  of  a  practical  character 
and  few  of  any  scientific  value,  but  the  lecture  of 
Professor  Harnack,3  which  gave  rise  to  the  con- 

1  Caspari's  principal  works  upon  the  subject  are  Ungedruckte, 
unbeachtete  und  wenig  beachtete  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols 
und  der  Glaubensregel :  in  three  volumes,  1866,  1869,  1875,  Chris- 
tiania;  and  Alte  und  neue  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Taufsymbols 
und  der  Glaubensregel,  Christiania,  1879. 

2  Das  apostolische  Symbol :  seine  Entstehung,  sein  geschichtlicher 
Sinn,  seine  urspriingliche  Stellung  im  Kultus  und  in  der  Theologie  der 
Kirche.  Bd.  I :  Die  Grundgestalt  des  Taufsymbols,  Leipzig,  1894 ; 
Bd.  II :   Verbreitung  und  Bedeutung  des  Taufsymbols,  1900. 

3  Das  apostolische  Glaubensbekenntniss,  ein  geschichtlicher  Bericht, 
nebst  einem  Nachwort,  Berlin,  1892  ;  English  translation  by  Mrs. 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  5 

troversy,  is  an  interesting  and  suggestive  sketch 
of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  creed,  and  the 
pamphlet  of  Professor  Zahn  '  contains  much  ma- 
terial of  value.  Hahn's  Bibliothek  der  Symbole  und 
Glaiibensregeln  der  alien  Kirche,  which  appeared  in 
a  third  and  greatly  improved  edition  in  1897,  is 
indispensable  to  any  one  who  wishes  to  make  a 
study  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  and  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  or  indeed  of  any  of  the  creeds  of  the  early 
church.  It  is  the  most  complete  collection  we 
have  of  the  texts  of  ancient  creeds  both  public 
and  private,  but  it  needs  to  be  used  with  caution, 
as  its  texts  are  not  always  to  be  relied  upon,  and 
it  should  be  tested  in  every  case  by  Kattenbusch.2 

Humphry  Ward  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  July  1893.  The 
little  book  by  H.  B.  Swete  (The  Apostles'  Creed:  its  Relation  to 
Primitive  Christianity,  London,  1894)  is  in  the  main  a  defence  of  the 
primitive  character  of  the  creed  over  against  Harnack. 

Harnack  has  written  upon  one  or  another  phase  of  the  subject 
in  numerous  periodicals.  His  admirable  summary  in  Herzog's 
Encyclopedia,  third  edition  (s.  v.  Das  apostolische  Symbol)  and  his 
Chronologic  der  alt-christlichen  Litteratur,  Bd.  I,  S.  524  seq.,  should 
also  be  referred  to,  as  well  as  his  convenient  collection  of  illustra- 
tive matter  from  the  literature  of  the  first  two  centuries  in  the 
appendix  to  the  third  edition  of  Hahn's  Bibliothek  der  Symbole  und 
Glaiibensregeln  der  alten  Kirche,  Breslau,  1897. 

1  Das  apostolische  Symbolum.  Eine  Skizze  seiner  Geschichte  und 
eine  Priifung  seines  Inhalts,  Erlangen  and  Leipzig,  1893 ;  English 
translation  under  the  title  The  Articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  by 
A.  E.  Burn,  London  1899. 

Burn  is  himself  the  author  of  a  recent  work  (A n  Introduction  to 
the  Creeds  and  to  the  Te  Deum,  London,  1899)  which  deals  in  part 
with  the  origin  and  history  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  contains 
some  new  material. 

2  An  elaborate  conspectus  of  the  literature  upon  the  Apostles' 


6  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

I  have  said  that  a  briefer  creed,  commonly 
known  as  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  underlies  our 
present  Apostles'  Creed.  From  a  work  by  Rufinus 
of  Aquileia,  written  about  400  a.d.,  we  learn  that 
that  symbol  was  in  use  in  the  church  of  Rome  in 
the  fourth  century  and  a  comparison  of  Rufinus' 
work  with  a  letter  of  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  written 
some  sixty  years  earlier,  shows  that  the  symbol 
at  that  time  ran  as  follows  :  "I  believe  in  God 
the  Father  almighty  and  in  Christ  Jesus  his  only 
begotten  son  our  Lord,  who  was  born  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  Mary  the  Virgin,  was  crucified  under 
Pontius  Pilate  and  buried,  on  the  third  day  rose 
from  the  dead,  ascended  into  heaven,  sitteth  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  from  whence  he 
cometh  to  judge  quick  and  dead ;  and  in  Holy 
Spirit,  holy  church,  remission  of  sins,  resurrection 
of  flesh."  * 

This  symbol,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three 
phrases,  can  be  traced  back  to  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century,  our  earliest  witnesses  to  its 
existence  being  Tertullian  of  North  Africa2  and 
his  older  contemporary  Irenaeus  of  Southern  Gaul.3 
There  is  some  difficulty  in  reconstructing  the 
exact   text   of   the    symbol   as    known   to   them. 

Creed  both  old  and  new  is  given  by  Kattenbusch,  I.,  p.  1  seq. 
and  II.,  p.  729  seq.  and  967  seq. 

1  Upon  the  text  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, see  p.  39  seq. 

2  See  p.  47  seq.  3  See  p.  48  seq. 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  7 

Many  scholars  maintain  that  it  was  the  same  as 
that  known  to  Rufinus,  but  I  think  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  phrases  "  only  begotten "  after  "  Christ 
Jesus,"  "of  the  Holy  Spirit "  after  "born," 
"forgiveness  of  sins,"  and  very  likely  also  the 
article  on  the  church,  and  possibly  the  phrase 
"  our  Lord  "  after  "  Christ  Jesus  his  Son  "  were  not 
a  part  of  it  in  their  time,  so  that  it  ran  then  sub- 
stantially :  "  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  almighty 
and  in  Christ  Jesus  his  son,  who  was  born  of  Mary 
the  Virgin,  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  and 
buried,  on  the  third  day  rose  from  the  dead, 
ascended  into  heaven,  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father,  from  whence  he  cometh  to  judge  quick 
and  dead ;  and  in  Holy  Spirit,  resurrection  of 
flesh."1 

I  have  said  that  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  are  our 
earliest  witnesses  to  the  existence  of  this  symbol. 
It  is  true  that  some  scholars  think  they  can  trace 
it  still  further  back,  finding  evidences  that  it  was 
already  in  use  in  Rome  when  Marcion  came 
thither,  and  that  it  was  known  to  Justin  Martyr 
and  even  to  some  of  the  apostolic  fathers.  But 
after  a  very  careful  study  of  all  our  sources  for  a 
knowledge  of  Marcion's  career  and  of  the  entire 
pre-Irensean  literature  I  am  unable  to  find  a 
single  trace  of  the  existence  of  our  creed  or  of  any 
similar  creed  before  the  time  of  Irenseus.     It  is 

1  On  the  original  text  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  see  p.  84  seq. 


8  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

true  that  many  of  the  phrases  which  occur  in  the 
creed  are  common  in  the  earliest  fathers,  but  that 
proves  nothing.  It  has  been  altogether  too  com- 
mon to  assume  a  knowledge  of  the  creed  wherever 
one  of  its  phrases,  or  even  phraseology  remotely 
resembling  any  part  of  it  has  been  found,  as  if  the 
framer  of  the  creed  was  himself  the  author  of  all 
its  statements  and  did  not  rather  gather  them 
together  from  the  common  Christian  thought  and 
language  of  the  day.  Certainly  a  creed  could 
hardly  have  hoped  to  find  general  acceptance 
which  contained  new  and  unfamiliar  phraseology 
from  beginning  to  end.  In  the  complete  absence 
of  statements  implying  the  existence  of  any  creed 
whatever,  there  should  be  found  at  least  such  a 
collocation  of  creedal  phrases  and  in  such  a  connec- 
tion as  to  make  a  creedal  origin  probable.  It  is 
not  enough,  as  some  have  thought,  to  show  that 
there  is  no  conclusive  evidence  against  the  exist- 
ence of  the  creed  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  The  mere  fact  that  it  existed  in  175 
a.d.  does  not  warrant  us  in  pushing  it  back  fifty 
or  seventy-five  years  further  unless  there  is  posi- 
tive evidence  of  an  affirmative  character.  But  as 
a  matter  of  fact  not  simply  is  no  such  evidence 
forthcoming,  there  are  on  the  contrary  not  a  few 
indications  of  an  opposite  character.  I  cannot  go 
into  the  details  of  the  matter  in  this  lecture.  I 
may  simply  remark  that  the  elaborate  account  of 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  9 

the  rite  of  baptism  which  Justin  Martyr  gives  in 
his  first  Apology  makes  decidedly  against  the 
use  of  a  creed  in  Rome  in  his  time,  and  the 
absence  of  any  reference  to  a  creed  in  the  Didache, 
which  has  so  much  to  say  about  pre-baptismal 
instruction,  is  conclusive  proof  that  none  was 
used  in  the  part  of  the  church  to  which  the 
Didache  belongs  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second 
century.1 

Tertullian  and  Irenseus,  then,  are  our  earliest 
witnesses  to  the  existence  of  a  creed.  Their  testi- 
mony carries  us  back  some  years  beyond  175  A.D., 
but  not  beyond  the  middle  of  the  century.  It 
would  seem,  in  fact,  that  the  creed  known  as  the 
Old  Roman  Symbol  must  have  originated  between 
150  and  175,  a  time  when  there  was  every 
reason  for  the  formation  of  some  creedal  state- 
ment to  guard  against  the  misconceptions  of  Chris- 
tianity which  were  widely  prevalent  and  were 
causing  serious  trouble.  It  would  seem,  still  fur- 
ther, that  it  must  have  originated  in  Rome,  whence 
the  other  churches  of  the  west  certainly  derived 
it.  In  Rome  we  can  trace  its  existence  as  far 
back  as  150-175,  while  there  is  no  certain  proof 
of  any  similar  creed  in  any  part  of  the  east  until 
well  on  in  the  third  century.  At  this  point  I  am 
glad  to  find  myself  in  agreement  with  Katten- 
busch,  who  maintains  the  Roman    origin  of  the 

1  On  the  date  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  see  p.  46  seq. 


10  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

creed  over  against  the  older  view  of  Caspari  that 
it   took  its  rise   in   the   east.1 

The  authorship  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  and 
the  exact  occasion  of  its  composition  we  do  not 
know,  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  it  was  designed  as  a 
baptismal  confession  —  a  form  of  words  in  which 
the  convert  should  declare  his  faith.2  It  seems 
natural  enough  now  to  use  such  a  confession,  but 
when. one  realizes  the  original  Christian  custom, 
the  existence  of  the  confession  seems  very  strange. 
Peter  at  Pentecost  said  to  his  converts  simply 
"  Repent  and  be  baptized."  In  the  Didache  only 
ethical  instruction  is  given  the  candidate  for  bap- 
tism ;  and  we  learn  from  other  sources  that  it  was 
common  in  many  quarters  in  the  primitive  church 
for  the  converts  simply  to  pledge  themselves  at 
the  time  of  baptism  to  commit  no  murder  or  theft 
or  other  crime  and  to  live  as  became  a  follower 
of  Christ.3 

How,  then,  are  we  to  account  for  the  existence  in 
the  late  second  century  of  an  elaborate  baptismal 
confession  in  which  all  the  emphasis  is  on  belief 
and  not  a  word  is  said  about  conduct  ?  We  do 
not  need  to  search  long  in  the  literature  of  the 
second    century    to    find    an    adequate    answer. 

1  On  the  place  of  composition  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  see 
p.  101  seq. 

2  Cf.  Irenams,  I.,  9,  4;  10,  1 ;  and  Tertullian,  De  Corona,  3. 

8  Cf.,  e.  g.,  Pliny's  Epistle  to  Trajan,  No.  96  (97)  ;  and  Hip- 
polytus,  Phil.,  IX.  10. 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  11 


Before  the    middle    of   ttiafc7  century   there   were 
Christians  who  were  preaching  views  which  most 
of  the  disciples  regarded  as  the  worst  of  heresies  ; 
views  which  appeared  to  be  thoroughly  heathen  in 
their  character  and  which  it  seemed  that  every 
true  Christian  believer  must  repudiate  if  he  would 
remain  true  to  Christ.     Up  to  this  time  it  had 
apparently  been  taken  for  granted  that  all  con- 
verts   from    heathenism    in    receiving    Christian 
baptism   and    casting  in   their  lot  with  the  dis- 
ciples  of    Christ,    would   inevitably  renounce   all 
heathen  errors  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Christ 
and  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.     But  it  was  becom- 
ing manifest  in  the  second  century  that  the  as- 
sumption was  unfounded,  that  there  were  many 
Christians  who  were  bringing  over  with  them  into 
the  church  views  about  God  and  the  world  and 
Christ  which  seemed  absolutely  destructive  of  the 
Christian  faith  and  life.     And  so  the  custom  arose 
of   inquiring,    when  new   converts   wished  to  be 
baptized,   whether  they  renounced  the  false  and 
pernicious    ideas   of   the    heathen    and    heretics, 
and    it  was  apparently  in  order  to   insure    such 
renunciation  that  the  positive  statement  of  faith 
which  we  know  as  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  was 
framed,  and  all  candidates  for  baptism  in  Rome 
were  required  to  learn  it  by  heart  and  repeat  it 
in  the  most  solemn  manner  at  the    time  of  their 
baptism.     At  this  point  I  must  confess  myself  to  be 


12  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

out  of  agreement  with  the  opinion  commonly  pre- 
valent among  recent  scholars,  including  even 
Harnack  and  Kattenbusch.  Most  of  them  regard 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  as  a  positive  statement  of 
the  Christian  faith  framed  quite  independently  of 
existing  errors  and  with  a  primarily  evangelistic 
or  missionary  purpose.  This  opinion  I  was  com- 
pelled some  years  ago  to  abandon,  and  continued 
study  has  only  confirmed  me  in  my  abandonment 
of  it.  The  structure  of  the  creed,  its  omissions 
as  well  as  its  assertions,  the  date  at  which  it 
arose  and  the  contrast  between  its  use  at  baptism 
and  the  earlier  custom,  when  the  church  had 
hardly  begun  to  be  troubled  by  false  teaching  and 
was  chiefly  interested  in  evangelism  —  all  point 
in  the  same  direction,  and  seem  to  me  to  make  it 
certain  that  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  like  most  of 
I  the  great  historic  creeds,  arose  as  a  protest  against 
error.1  It  is  in  the  light,  then,  of  the  errors  against 
which  it  was  directed  that  it  must  be  interpreted.2 
But  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  Old  Roman  Symbol 
is  not  a  general  statement  of  the  faith  of  the 
Christians  of  the  second  century  over  against  all 
the  errors  of  the  day.  There  are  many  essential 
elements  in  their  faith  which  have  no  place  in  the 
symbol,  and  there  were  not  a  few  common  errors 

1  Upon  the  purpose  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  see  p.  106  seq. 

2  For  a  detailed  interpretation  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  see 
p.  108  seq. 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  13 

which  are  passed  by  without  notice.  The  symbol, 
in  fact,  as  is  quite  evident,  is  in  the  main  a  simple 
enlargement  of  the  baptismal  formula,  and  it  is 
concerned  chiefly  to  state  the  true  Christian  faith 
touching  the  persons  into  whose  names  the  convert 
is  baptized. 

The  movement  which  was  making  most  trouble 
in  Kome  at  the  time  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  was 
framed  was  that  of  Marcion,  the  would-be  Pauline 
reformer.  Marcion' s  radical  Paulinism  led  him  to 
repudiate  not  only  the  law  but  the  law-giver ;  and 
so  he  drew  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  God  of 
the  Jews  and  the  God  of  the  Christians,  and  denied 
that  the  latter  was  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the 
world  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament  —  denied,  in 
fact,  that  he  had  anything  to  do  with  making  and 
governing  the  material  universe.  Marcion  thus 
cut  the  root  of  the  belief  in  providence  upon 
which  Jesus  laid  so  great  stress,  and  which  is 
really  essential  to  genuine  and  healthy  Christian 
living. 

It  was  over  against  this  error  that  the  first 
article  in  the  Old  Eoman  symbol  seems  to  have 
been  framed :  "  I  believe  in  God  the  Father 
almighty."  The  word  in  the  original  Greek  — 
TravTOKparayp — means  not  "almighty"  but  "all 
controlling "  or  "  all  governing,"  the  reference 
being  to  God  as  the  one  who  holds  and  con- 
trols and  governs  the  universe.     The  connection 


14  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

then  makes  it  clear  that  the  word  Father  meant 
"  Father  of  the  universe,"  Father  being  used  in 
the  sense  of  Author  or  Maker  as  it  was  commonly 
used  by  the  Christians  of  the  second  century. 
Thus  when  the  early  Christians  uttered  the  first 
article  of  the  creed  they  were  not  asserting  their 
faith  in  the  Father  as  the  first  person  of  the 
Trinity,  or  in  God  as  the  loving  and  merciful 
Father  of  men,  whom  Christ  preached  ;  but  in 
God  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe,  a 
belief  which  is  Christian,  but  not  distinctively  so, 
for  it  is  much  older  than  Christ  and  has  always 
been  shared  by  many  quite  without  the  circle  of 
Christian  influence. 

The  second  article  of  the  creed — the  article  on 
Christ — is  not  simply  the  most  elaborate  but 
the  most  striking  part  of  it.  It  is  significant 
as  well  for  its  omissions  as  for  its  assertions. 
Nothing  is  said  about  the  baptism  of  Christ,  of 
which  so  much  is  made  in  the  gospels  and  which 
we  know  was  emphasized  in  many  quarters  in 
the  second  century ;  nothing  is  said  of  Christ's 
teaching,  or  of  his  works  of  mercy  and  of  power ; 
nothing  of  his  fulfilment  of  messianic  prophecy,  upon 
which  all  the  early  missionaries,  whether  addressing 
Jews  or  gentiles,  laid  the  very  greatest  stress,  upon 
which  in  fact  they  chiefly  based  their  claim  that 
Christ  was  a  messenger  sent  from  God ;  nothing  is 
said  of  the  salvation  brought  by  Jesus  and  nothing 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  15 

of  the  purpose  of  his  life  or  death.  It  does  not 
help  matters  to  say  that  the  brevity  of  the  creed 
required  the  omission  of  these  things,  for  they  are 
of  primary  importance,  and  some  of  them  certainly 
occupy  a  far  larger  place  in  the  New  Testament 
and  in  the  preaching  of  the  missionaries  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries  than  some  of  the  things 
that  are  mentioned,  than  the  virgin  birth,  for  in- 
stance, and  the  ascension.  And  the  insertion  of  the 
word  "  buried  "  after  "  crucified  "  shows  that  brevity 
was  not  the  only  consideration.  Evidently  the 
second  article  was  not  intended  as  a  summary,  even 
of  the  briefest  character,  of  what  the  Christians  of 
the  second  century  believed  about  Christ.  It  was 
rather  a  statement  designed  particularly  to  meet 
certain  specific  difficulties  and  errors.  Among  the 
teachings  of  Marcion  which  were  most  offensive  to 
Christians  in  general  was  the  assertion  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  the  son  of  the  creator  and  ruler 
of  the  world — the  God  of  the  Old  Testament — 
but  of  another  being  altogether,  who  was  entirely 
unknown  until  the  coming  of  Christ.  One  can 
hardly  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  author  of  the 
Old  Roman  Symbol  had  this  in  mind  when  he  de- 
clared that  the  Jesus  Christ  into  whose  name  the 
convert  is  baptized  is  the  son  of  the  creator  and 
ruler  of  the  universe  mentioned  in  the  first  article. 
The  sentences  which  immediately  follow  seem  to 
be  primarily  intended  as  an  assertion  of  the  reality 


16  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

of  Christ's  earthly  life.  He  was  born  of  a  woman 
— the  Virgin  Mary — a  birth  which  Marcion  abso- 
lutely denied  ;  he  was  crucified,  buried,  rose  again, 
and  ascended.  The  docetism  of  Marcion  and  the 
Gnostics  and  many  other  Christians  of  the  second 
century  is  familiar  to  all  of  us,  their  denial  of 
the  reality  of  Christ's  earthly  life,  which  took 
the  form  either  of  a  denial  of  the  material  reality 
of  his  body  or  of  the  assertion  that  the  spiritual 
heavenly  Christ,  and  the  man  Jesus,  were  two 
distinct  beings,  so  that  it  could  not  be  said  that 
Christ  himself  was  crucified  and  buried  and  rose 
again.  The  creed  in  asserting  that  Christ  Jesus 
was  born  and  was  crucified  and  buried  and  rose 
again,  and  that  it  was  the  crucified  and  buried 
one  that  ascended  to  heaven,  repudiates  in  the 
most  explicit  terms  the  whole  docetic  conception. 

The  omission  of  the  baptism  is  also  worth 
noting  in  this  connection.  Of  the  baptism  many 
of  the  docetic  sects  made  a  great  deal,  holding  that 
it  was  at  the  time  of  the  baptism  that  the 
heavenly  Christ  came  down  upon  the  man  Jesus 
to  abide  with  him  during  his  public  ministry,  and 
to  leave  him  again  just  before  his  crucifixion.  It 
was  found  difficult  in  view  of  the  account  of  the 
baptism  in  the  gospels  to  meet  the  arguments  of 
the  docetists  and  so  the  tendency  arose  to  mini- 
mize the  baptism,  and  the  result  was  that  it  found 
an  entrance  into  none  of  the  historic  creeds.     As 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  17 

the  baptism  received  less  emphasis  the  virgin 
birth  received  proportionately  more.  The  belief 
in  the  virgin  birth,  though  certainly  not  common 
in  the  earliest  days,  had  become  widespread  before 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  as  is  shown  by  the 
gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  and  by  the  epistles 
of  Ignatius,  and  was  a  part  of  the  general  faith 
of  the  church  before  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  was 
framed.  At  the  same  time  the  interest  underly- 
ing the  statement  "  born  of  Mary  the  Virgin  "  in 
the  symbol,  must  be  recognized  to  have  been  not 
the  uniqueness  of  Christ's  birth  so  much  as  the 
reality  of  it.  What  the  convert  was  asked  to  do 
was  to  declare  his  belief  that  Christ  was  born  of  a 
woman,  and  this  doubtless  he  might  have  done 
in  the  words  of  the  original  symbol  even  had  he 
not  believed  that  Christ's  birth  was  different  from 
that  of  other  men.  But  the  subsequent  insertion 
of  the  words  "  of  the  Holy  Spirit "  marks  a 
change  of  interest  and  of  emphasis.  Just  when  the 
words  were  added  we  do  not  know,  probably  at 
the  latest  not  long  after  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century.  They  were,  of  course,  not  supposed 
to  add  anything  new  to  the  creed,  for  the  phrase 
"  born  of  Mary  the  Virgin  "  seemed  to  carry  with 
it  by  implication  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
recounted  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  At  the  same 
time  their  addition  'does  indicate  a  desire  to 
emphasize  the  divineness  of  Christ's  origin,  which 


18  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

seemed  to  the  original  framers  of  the  creed  in  less 
need  of  emphasis  than  the  reality  of  his  hu- 
manity.1 

I  spoke  a  few  moments  ago  of  Marcion's  denial 
of  the  identity  of  the  God  of  the  Jews  and  the 
God  of  the  Christians,  and  of  his  assertion  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  son,  not  of  the  former  but  of 
the  latter,  not  of  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the 
world,  but  of  a  God  entirely  unknown  until  the 
coming  of  Christ.  I  spoke  also  of  his  docetism, 
which  took  all  reality  out  of  the  earthly  life  of 
Christ.  Another  Marcionitic  tenet  which  gave 
widespread  offence,  and  was  regarded  by 
Christians  in  general  as  peculiarly  dangerous,  was 
the  denial  of  the  last  judgment.  Marcion  con- 
ceived of  the  Christian  God,  the  God  of  redemp- 
tion revealed  by  Christ,  as  pure  love  and  mercy, 
and  denied  that  he  or  his  son,  Jesus  Christ,  would 
judge  any  one.  In  the  article  on  the  judgment  in 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  joined  as  it  is  to  the 
session  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  the  Mar- 
cionitic position  is  repudiated  in  the  most  em- 
phatic way.  Christ  will  come  again  from  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  that  is,  with  his  authority  and 
as  his  agent,  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead. 

The  article  on  the  Holy  Spirit  which  follows 
the  article  on  the  judgment  was  not  called  forth 
by  any  anti-heathen  or  anti-heretical  interest,  for^ 

1  See  p.  122  seq. 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  19 

neither  heathen  nor  heretics  had  any  difficulty  in 
believing  in  one  or  in  many  divine  spirits.  It  is 
noticeable  that  the  creed  does  not  say  "  One  Holy 
Spirit "  or  even  "  The  Holy  Spirit,"  at  least  not 
in  the  best  text,  but  simply  irvev^a  ayiov  with- 
out article  or  qualifying  phrase.  Evidently  the 
mention  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  creed  was  due 
simply  to  its  occurrence  in  the  baptismal  formula 
upon  which  the  creed  was  based. 

I  have  said  that  the  creed  is  an  enlargement  of 
the  baptismal  formula,  and  it  is  commonly,  I 
may  say  universally  assumed  that  it  is  an  en- 
largement of  the  formula  found  in  Matt,  xxviii. 
19:  "Into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  I  think  it  can 
be  shown,  though  I  cannot  stop  to  discuss  the 
matter  here,  that  the  formula  upon  which  it  is 
based  was  rather  "  Into  the  name  of  God  and  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  a  formula 
which,  as  I  think  it  can  also  be  shown,  is  older 
than  the  triune  formula  of  Matthew.  It  is  found 
in  2  Cor.  xiii.  13  as  a  formula  of  benediction,  and 
its  use  in  Rome  in  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury in  connection  with  baptism  is  testified  to  by 
Justin  Martyr,  who  throws  more  light  than  any 
other  father  upon  the  conditions  existing  in  Rome 
just  before  the  time  when  the  creed  originated.1 

1  Upon  the  baptismal  formula  and  its  relation  to  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol,  see  p.  175  seq. 


20  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

But  this  conclusion  is  in  line  with  a  conclusion 
which  may  be  drawn  independently  from  the  creed 
itself,  and  that  is  that  in  the  creed  the  convert 
declared  his  faith  not  in  the  three  persons  of  the 
Trinity  —  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God 
the  Holy  Spirit  —  but  in  God,  and  in  the  historic 
person  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Neither  the  deity  of  Christ  nor  his  pre-existence 
was  referred  to  in  the  original  symbol,  nor  did 
that  symbol  contain  any  reference  to  an  incarna- 
tion. For  a  creedal  statement  of  Christ's  pre-exist- 
ence, deity,  and  incarnation  the  church  had  to 
wait  until  Nicaea. 

In  the  declaration  of  belief  in  God  the  Father 
almighty  and  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  and  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  content  of  the  baptismal  formula 
is  fully  reproduced.  What  follows  is  not  based 
upon  the  baptismal  formula,  but  is  added  appar- 
ently in  order  to  repudiate  other  particularly 
troublesome  errors. 

The  article  on  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh, 
phrased  as  it  is  with  the  emphasis  upon  the  flesh, 
would  seem  to  be  a  protest  against  the  Marcionitic 
denial  of  the  salvability  of  the  flesh,  a  denial 
which  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  worst  and  most 
dangerous  of  all  heresies  in  the  second  century. 
The  church  at  large  was  not  satisfied  with  Paul's 
doctrine  of  a  spiritual  body,  which  the  Marcionites 
and  many  of  the  Gnostics  made  their  own,  but 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  21 

insisted  upon  the  resurrection  of  this  very  flesh, 
with  all  its  particles  intact  and  unchanged,  in 
order  to  prepare  the  believer  for  the  earthly  mil- 
lennial kingdom  which  Christ  was  to  return  and 
establish.  The  original  significance  of  this  article 
is  somewhat  obscured  in  our  English  translation 
of  it :  "  Resurrection  of  the  body."  The  word 
body,  of  course,  admits  of  the  Pauline  interpreta- 
tion, the  resurrection  namely  of  a  spiritual  body 
which  amounts  to  no  more  than  personal  immor- 
tality. But  in  its  original  form  the  fleshly  char- 
acter of  the  resurrection  was  asserted  and  even 
emphasized,  and  so  the  article  had  a  distinctly, 
though  not  of  course  consciously  anti-Pauline 
meaning."  1 

One  of  the  most  interesting  articles  in  the  creed 
is  the  "  forgiveness  of  sins."  It  was  apparently  not 
a  part  of  the  original  symbol,  for  neither  Irenaens 
nor  Tertullian  mentions  it ;  but  it  seems  to  have 
been  added  soon  after  200,  and  I  cannot  resist  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  inserted  with  a  reference  to 
the  controversy  which  was  then  going  on  in  Rome 
over  the  question  whether  the  forgiveness  of  post- 
baptismal  sins  is  possible.  So  that  while  the 
statement  itself  is  general  and  preserves  what  has 
always  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  precious 
and  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  put  into  the  creed  with  a 

1  On  this  article,  see  p.  164  seq. 


22  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

distinctly  hierarchical  reference,  to  commit  the 
convert  to  the  Catholic  principle  of  absolution, 
upon  which  Bishop  Callixtus  of  Home  took  his 
stand  over  against  the  earlier  principle  that  the 
church  is  a  community  of  saints  and  that  there  is 
no  absolution  but  only  excommunication  for  those 
who  commit  mortal  sins  after  baptism.1 

The  article  on  the  church  may  not  have  been 
in  the  original  symbol,  as  Irenaeus  does  not  refer 
to  it  and  Tertullian  does  not  give  it  in  his  repro- 
ductions of  the  creed.  If  it  did  actually  constitute 
a  part  of  the  original  text  it  may  possibly  have 
been  intended  as  a  protest  against  the  Gnostics' 
denial  of  the  holiness  of  the  church  at  large  and 
their  assertion  that  only  they  themselves,  an  elect 
few  within  the  church,  are  really  holy  and  really 
saved. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  article  was  added,  as 
it  perhaps  was,  early  in  the  third  century,  it  must 
have  been  a  fruit  of  the  controversy  just  referred 
to  touching  the  forgiveness  of  post-baptismal  sins, 
and  connected  as  it  is  with  the  article  on  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  it  must  have  been  intended,  in 
that  case,  to  assert  that  though  the  church  receives 
back  into  communion  excommunicated  offenders, 
and  so  is  composed  of  sinners  as  well  as  saints, 
yet  the  church  is  a  holy  church.2 

This  completes  the  interpretation    of    the    Old 

1  See  p.  155  seq.  2  See  p.  161  seq. 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  23 

Roman  Symbol.  But  our  present  Apostles'  Creed 
contains  other  clauses  not  found  in  the  older  sym- 
bol. Before  attempting  to  interpret  them  let  us 
look  at  the  origin  of  the  enlarged  creed.1  An 
examination  of  the  various  western  texts  given  by 
Hahn  and  Kattenbusch  shows  that  three  general 
types  of  creed  may  be  distinguished  :  first  the 
Italian  type,  which  is  nearest  to  the  Old  Roman  Sym- 
bol and  reproduces  it  with  only  slight  variations ; 
secondly  the  North  African  type,  which  reproduces 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  with  certain  common  and 
stereotyped  additions  ;  and  thirdly  the  west  Euro- 
pean type,  which  is  farthest  from  the  Old  Roman 
symbol  and  is  characterized  by  greater  free- 
dom and  variety  than  either  of  the  other  types, 
additions  being  made  apparently  to  meet  local  needs 
and  without  much  regard  to  the  forms  in  use  in 
neighboring  churches.2  The  general  difference  in 
these  three  types  is  just  what  we  should  expect. 
In  Italy  Rome  was  dominant  and  it  was  natural 
that  its  creed  should  be  used  with  few  changes.     In 

1  See  Kattenbusch,  II.,  p.  759  seq.,  for  an  elaborate  discussion 
of  this  question. 

2  See  Kattenbusch,  I.,  p.  194  seq.  Harnack  distinguishes  four 
types  (Italian,  North  African,  Spanish,  and  Gallic),  and  assigns 
our  present  text  to  the  last  (see  his  article  in  the  third  edition  of 
Herzog,  p.  746,  and  cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.,  p.  778).  That  there  are 
some  characteristic  differences  between  the  known  Spanish  and 
Gallic  creeds  is  true,  but  in  the  present  uncertainty  as  to  the  exact 
home  of  many  western  texts  we  can  hardly  distinguish  between 
two  western  types  with  the  same  sharpness  as  between  the  Italian, 
North  African,   and  Western. 


24  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

Africa  the  church  of  Carthage  had  paramount 
influence,  and  it  was  natural  that  while  additions 
to  the  Roman  symbol  should  be  more  freely  made 
than  in  Italy  they  should  all  conform  closely  to 
the  Carthaginian  type.  In  western  Europe,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  was  no  central  authority  and  no 
dominating  church  or  bishop.  The  west  felt  the 
influence  both  of  Rome  and  of  North  Africa,  but 
the  several  churches  developed  with  considerable 
freedom  and  independence,  and  so  we  should 
expect  to  find  variety  in  the  texts  of  their  creeds, 
the  only  common  element  being  the  Roman 
original  upon  which  they  were   all  built. 

Our  present  Apostles'  Creed  belongs  evidently 
to  the  western  type.     One  of  the  additions  which 
it  contains  (descended  into  Hades)  appeared  first 
in  Italy ;   another  (eternal  life)  in  North  Africa, 
but  both  are  found  also  a  little  later  in  the  text? 
of  western  Europe,  and  there  are  others  which  ? 
found  first  in  those  texts ;  as  for  instance  :  "  cr 
torem    coeli  et    terrae ;  "   u  qui  conceptus    est 
"passus  et  mortuus  ;"  "  Dei  omnipotentis  "  (in  t, 
article  on  the  session);  "catholicam"  (with  church) 
and  "  communionem  sanctorum.''     Indeed  only  ir 
western  texts   are  all  the  additions   to    the    Oh 
Roman  Symbol  found  before  our  Apostles'  Creei 
appears  in  exactly  its  present  form.     There  ca, 
thus   be    practically    no    doubt    that    the    presen 
form  originated  in  western  Europe  even  though 


THE  APOSTLES7   CREED  25 

we  cannot  fix  the  exact  time  or  place  of  its 
formation.1 

But  though  our  present  creed  is  of  the  western 
type,  it  is  not  the  fullest  and  richest  form  of  that 
type.  It  is  simply  one  of  a  number  of  forms,  some 
of  which  are  even  more  elaborate  than  it.  For 
instance,  we  find  in  other  western  texts  "  Deum  et 
Dominum"  with  "  Jesum  Christum ;"  "  vivus  "  with 
"  resurrexit ; "  u  victor  "  with  "ascendit  in  coelos;  " 
"omnium"  with  "peccatorum  ;  "  "  per  baptismum  " 
with  "  remissionem;  "  "  hujus  "  with  "  carnis,"  and 
so  on.  Moreover  the  additions  which  are  found  in 
our  present  text  cannot  be  pronounced  superior  to 
those  that  occur  in  other  texts,  nor  does  a  single 
principle  underlie  them,  so  that  they  can  be  said  to 
belong  naturally  together.  There  seems  in  fact  to 
have  been  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case  why 
^ther  additions  instead  of  these  might  not  have 
en  permanently  adopted.  The  present  form  is 
the  one  legitimate  and  final  result  of  the  devel- 

nent  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol.2     It  is  simply 

1  The  common  and  probably  the  correct  opinion  is  that  the 
jresent  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  originated  in  Gaul  (cf. 
Harnack's  article  in  Herzog).  In  the  first  volume  of  his  work 
p.  196  seq.)  Kattenbusch  says  that  we  have  no  means  of  determin- 
:ng  the  place  of  its  origin,  beyond  the  fact  that  it  belongs  to 
Vestern  Europe,  but  in  the  second  volume  (p.  790  seq.)  he  gives 
easons  for  thinking  that  it  may  have  originated  in  the  province  of 
Burgundy.  Burn  (Introduction  to  the  Creeds,  p.  221  seq.)  assigns 
t  to  Rome,  but  without  sufficient  reason  (cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.,  p. 
784  seq.). 

2  Cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.,  p.  195  seq.,  and  also  II.,  p.  779,  where 


26  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

one  of  the  many  enlarged  forms  of  it,  and  why  it 
persisted  rather  than  one  of  the  others,  or  in  other 
words  why  it  rather  than  one  of  the  others  became 
in  the  early  middle  ages  the  creed  of  Rome  and  so 
finally  the  creed  of  the  whole  western  church, 
we  do  not  know.  Possibly  it  was  the  form,  among 
the  many  current  in  the  west,  which  happened 
to  be  in  use  at  the  Frankish  court  in  the  eighth 
century  when  the  Franks  were  beginning  to  domi- 
nate Rome.1 

The  way  in  which  this  western  form  of  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  became  itself  the  baptismal  creed 
of  the  Roman  church  and  was  handed  down  to 
subsequent  centuries  as  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and 
the  hereditary  symbol  of  Rome,  is  very  interesting, 
though  it  has  not  yet  been  fully  cleared  up.  We 
know  that  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  century  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  fell  into  disuse  in  Rome  and  the 
so-called  Nicene  creed  became  the  chief  baptismal 
symbol  of  the  church  of  that  city.2  Just  why  this 
happened  is  uncertain.  Possibly  it  was  because 
of  the  dominating  influence  of  the  Eastern  empire ; 
possibly  because  of  the  Arianism  of  the  Goths  and 
the  Lombards,  against  which  it  seemed  important 
to  guard  the  convert.     At  any  rate,  the  Nicene 

he  answers  the  criticisms  of  Harnack  in  the  third  edition  of 
Herzog's  Encyclopaedia,  s.  v.  Apostolisches  Symbol. 

1  Cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.,  p.  967. 

2  See  Caspari,  Quellen,  II.,  p.  114,  note  88 ;  and  compare  Kat- 
tenbusch, II.,  p.  796  seq. 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  27 

creed  continued  in  use  for  some  two  centuries  or 
more  and  by  that  time  the  Old  Roman  Symbol 
which  had  been  exclusively  employed  until  the 
fifth  or  sixth  century  seems  to  have  been  generally 
though  not  altogether  forgotten.  Meanwhile,  in 
the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  our  present  form  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed  came  into  use  in  Rome  in  con- 
nection with  baptism  and  ultimately  crowded  out 
P  the  Nicene  Creed  altogether.1  The  process  by 
which  this  second  displacement  was  brought  about 
is  even  more  obscure  than  the  first.  We  only 
know  that  the  enlarged  form  was  current  among 
the  Franks  in  the  eighth  century,  and  as  Frankish 
influence  began  at  that  time  to  be  strongly  felt  in 
Rome,  and  as  the  pope  was  drawing  ever  further 
away  from  the  Eastern  empire  and  was  beginning 
to  form  an  alliance  with  the  Franks,  it  may  well 
be  that  the  substitution  of  the  present  Apostles' 
Creed  for  the  Nicene  was  simply  a  part  of  the 
general  papal  policy. 

But  there  is  still  more  to  be  told  in  this  roman- 
tic chapter  of  symbolics.  The  Old  Roman  Symbol 
which  was  framed  in  the  second  century  was  re- 
garded before  the  end  of  that  century  as  an  apos- 
tolic  rule  of   faith,  as  a  standard  and  norm  of 

1  See  Caspari,  III.,  pp.  201  seq. ,  226 ;  and  compare  Kattenbusch, 
II,  pp.  794  seq.,  967.  Just  when  this  displacement  was  accom- 
plished we  do  not  know.  In  the  ninth  century  both  the  Nicene  and 
the  present  Apostles'  Creed  were  in  use  in  Rome  in  connection  with 
baptism.    See  Kattenbusch,  II.,  p.  800. 


28  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

apostolic  truth  possessing  equal  authority  with 
the  apostolic  scripture  canon.1  In  course  of  time 
this  belief  in  its  general  apostolic  origin  was  made 
definite  and  vivid  by  the  ascription  of  the  several 
articles  of  the  creed  to  the  several  apostles,  one 
article  to  each.  This  is  found  first  in  a  work  of 
the  late  fourth  or  early  fifth  century  ascribed  to 
Ambrose,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  apostles 
gathered  together  after  the  ascension  of  Christ 
and  published  a  symbol,  which  was  made  brief 
that  it  might  be  easily  remembered,  and  which 
was  composed  of  twelve  sentences  as  there  were 
twelve  apostles.  It  is  also  said  that  this  was  the 
symbol  which  had  been  preserved  in  the  church  of 
Rome  and  that  it  was  worse  to  add  or  subtract 
anything  than  in  the  case  of  the  Apocalypse,  for 
it  was  the  work  of  twelve  apostles,  but  the  Apoc- 
alypse of  only  one.2  When  this  legend  arose  we 
do  not  know.  It  was  evidently  due  only  to  the 
desire  to  make  the  general  belief  in  the  apostolic 
origin  of  the  symbol  vivid  and  realistic.  But  now 
comes  the  striking  part  of  the  story.  After  the 
western  creed  had  supplanted  the  Nicene  creed  in 

1  Cf.,  e.  g.,  Tertullian's  De  Praescriptione  Haereticorum. 

2  Explanatio  Symboli  ad  initiandos,  Migne,  Patr.  Lat.,  xvii.  1155- 
59.  Cf .  also  Rufinus  (Expositio  Symboli,  chap,  ii.),  who  says :  "  Be- 
ing all  therefore  met  together  they  [i.  e.,  the  apostles]  composed 
this  brief  formulary  of  their  future  preaching,  by  gathering  to- 
gether into  one  what  each  thought."  Upon  the  authorship  of  the 
Explanatio  Symboli  ad  initiandos,  see  Kattenbusch,  I.,  p.  84  seq., 
and  upon  the  legend  of  Apostolic  authorship,  ibid.,  II.,  p.  1  seq. 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  29 

Rome,  the  legend  which  had  attached  in  earlier 
days  to  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  attached  itself  to 
the  new  creed,  and  from  that  time  until  the  fif- 
teenth century  it  was  believed  that  the  creed  in 
the  form  which  we  still  use  was  the  direct  com- 
position of  the  several  apostles,  each  contributing 
his  respective  clause.  The  legend  first  appears  at- 
tached to  our  present  Apostles'  Creed  in  a  discourse 
of  the  early  middle  ages  whose  author,  date,  and 
place  of  composition  are  unknown.  The  passage 
containing  the  creed  is  given  by  Hahn  (§  42)  and 
runs  as  follows :  "  On  the  tenth  day  after  the 
ascension  when  the  disciples  were  gathered  for 
fear  of  the  Jews,  the  Lord  sent  the  promised  Para- 
clete. And  when  he  had  come  as  a  flaming  fire 
and  they  were  filled  with  the  knowledge  of  all 
tongues  they  composed  the  symbol.  Peter  said  : 
I  believe  in  God  the  Father  almighty,  maker  of 
heaven  and  earth.  Andrew  said  :  And  in  Jesus 
Christ  his  only  Son,  our  Lord.  James  said  :  Who 
was  •  conceived  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  born  of  Mary 
the  Virgin.  John  said:  Suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried.  Thomas 
said :  Descended  into  Hades,  on  the  third  day 
rose  from  the  dead.  James  said :  Ascended  into 
heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father 
almighty.  Philip  said:  Thence  he  is  about  to 
come  to  judge  quick  and  dead.  Bartholomew 
said  :  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit.    Matthew  said : 


30  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

Holy  catholic  church,  communion  of  saints.  Simon 
said  :  Remission  of  sins.  Thaddasus  said :  Resur- 
rection of  the  flesh.    Matthias  said  :  Life  eternal."  * 

The  truth  of  the  legend  was  first  questioned  by 
Laurentius  Valla  in  the  fifteenth  century,2  and 
was  finally  given  up  by  both  Protestants  and 
Roman  Catholics,  though  the  latter  still  claim  for 
the  creed  apostolic  authorship  in  a  general  sense.3 

I  have  left  myself  little  time  to  speak  of  the 
additions  which  distinguish  the  western  creed  — 
our  present  Apostles'  Creed  — from  the  Old  Roman 
Symbol.  Only  four  of  them  are  of  particular  im- 
portance :  " Descended  into  Hades";  the  word 
u  Catholic  "  in  the  article  on  the  church  ;  "  Com- 
munion of  saints,"  and  "  Life  eternal." 4 

"  Descended  into  Hades  "  first  appears  as  a  part 
of  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  the  version  of  the  Aqui- 

1  On  this  text  see  Kattenbusch,  L,  p.  192,  II.,  p.  777. 

2  At  the  Council  of  Florence,  in  1438,  where  attempts  were 
made  to  bring  abont  a  union  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  churches, 
the  eastern  theologians  declared  that  the  eastern  church  had  no 
Apostles'  Creed  and  knew  nothing  about  such  a  creed.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  Nicseno-Constantinopolitan  creed  had  been  the  baptismal 
symbol  of  the  Eastern  church  since  the  fifth  century,  and  the 
Apostles'  Creed  was  neither  known  nor  used  there.  It  was  probably 
as  a  result  of  the  discussions  at  this  Council  that  Laurentius  Valla 
threw  doubt  upon  the  truth  of  the  legend  concerning  apostolic 
authorship  which  had  grown  up  in  the  West  but  had  never 
had  a  place  in  the  East.     See  Kattenbusch,  I. ,  p.  1  seq. 

8  See  the  Catechismus  Romanus,  Caput  I.,  Quaestio  IT. 

4  See  p.  187  seq.  for  a  discussion  of  all  the  articles  and  phrases 
that  distinguish  the  present  Apostles'  Creed  from  the  Old  Roman 
Symbol. 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  31 

leian  symbol  given  by  Rufinus,  who  distinctly  says 
that  it  was  not  in  the  Roman  symbol  of  his  day, 
that  is,  400  a.  d.  It  appears  occasionally  in  west- 
ern texts  of  the  next  two  or  three  centuries,  in- 
cluding the  text  of  our  present  Apostles'  Creed. 
The  purpose  of  its  insertion  in  the  creed  we  do 
not  know.  It  was  perhaps  intended  to  emphasize 
the  completeness  of  Christ's  death  over  against 
the  subtle  docetism  of  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies, which  had  resulted  from  the  spread  of  the 
Logos  christology,  and  which  tended  to  confine 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  to  his  material  body, 
and  so  take  away  from  his  death  all  spiritual 
significance.  But  if  this  was  the  reason  for  the 
insertion  of  the  article  the  reason  had  been  for- 
gotten in  Aquileia  when  Rufinus  wrote,  for  he 
finds  in  the  words  only  a  repetition  of  the  state- 
ment that  Christ  was  buried. 

The  article  does  not  mean  that  Christ  descended 
into  hell,  or  the  place  of  punishment  for  lost 
souls,  but  into  the  underworld,  or  abode  of  the 
dead.  The  belief  that  Christ  thus  descended  into 
Hades  between  his  death  and  resurrection  is  as 
old  as  the  first  century  and  all  sorts  of  ideas  had 
attached  themselves  to  it,  the  commonest  being 
that  Christ  had  descended  in  order  to  preach 
to  the  dead,  or  in  order  to  destroy  the  power  of 
Satan.  But  the  article  as  it  stands  in  the  creed 
has    nothing   to    say   about   the   purpose   of   the 


32  THE   APOSTLES'    CREED 

Descent,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  its 
author  reflected  particularly  upon  that  purpose. 
He  was  interested  apparently  only  in  the  fact. 

The  adjective  "  catholic  "  in  the  article  on  the 
church  appears  in  the  creed  as  early  as  the  fourth 
century  and  was  very  common  from  the  fifth  cen- 
tury on.  The  addition  of  the  word  was  very  natu- 
ral, as  the  phrase  "  Holy  catholic  church  "  was  a 
current  phrase.  At  the  time  when  it  was  inserted 
in  the  creed  it  had  already  acquired  an  exclusive 
meaning  and  it  was  that  meaning  therefore  which 
attached  to  it  in  the  creed  ;  belief  being  expressed 
not  in  the  holy  church  universal,  but  in  the  parti- 
cular institution  which  was  known  as  the  Catholic 
Church  and  was  distinguished  from  all  schismatic 
and  heretical  bodies,  the  orthodox  catholic  church 
which  was  in  communion  with  the  church  of 
Rome.  The  common  Protestant  interpretation  of 
the  article  in  the  creed,  which  makes  it  refer  to 
the  holy  church  universal,  is  therefore  historically 
incorrect. 

The  article  on  the  communion  of  saints  is  very 
obscure.  It  appears  in  various  western  texts  of 
the  fifth  and  following  centuries,  but  why  it  was 
inserted  and  what  it  was  intended  to  express  we 
cannot  be  sure.  The  phrase  was  a  common  one 
in  the  west  from  the  fifth  century  on.  It  was  used 
sometimes  to  denote  participation  in  sacred  things, 
that  is  the  sacraments,  sometimes  to  denote  com- 


THE  APOSTLES'   CREED  33 

munion  with  departed  saints.  And  one  or  the 
other  of  these  meanings  probably  attaches  to  the 
article  in  the  creed.  There  is  no  sign  that 
the  article  was  intended  to  express  the  com- 
munion or  fellowship  of  believers  with  each  other, 
or  that  it  was  meant  as  a  closer  definition  of  the 
word  "  church,"  as  we  so  commonly  interpret  it 
to-day. 

The  article  "  Eternal  life "  appears  frequently 
in  texts  of  the  fourth  and  following  centuries. 
The  phrase  needs  no  special  interpretation.  It 
was  a  most  natural  addition  after  the  article  on 
the  resurrection  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  seek  for 
any  particular  occasion  for  its  insertion.  It  sup- 
plies a  lack  in  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  which  must 
have  been  widely  felt  when  the  original  polemic 
purpose  of  that  symbol  was  forgotten.  The 
earlier  symbol  closed  abruptly  with  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  flesh.  The  conclusion  of  the  present 
creed  is  far  more  satisfactory  and  expresses  far 
more  adequately  the  Christian  hope. 

Before  closing  this  lecture  permit  me  to  call 
attention  briefly  to  three  or  four  points  sug- 
gested by  the  account  I  have  given  of  the  origin 
and  early  history  of  the  creed.  In  the  first  place 
the  Apostles'  Creed  is  not  a  monument  of  the 
apostolic  or  early  post-apostolic  age.  It  belongs 
even  in  its  earliest  form  to  the  age  when  the 
catholic    spirit    was    beginning    to    displace    the 


34  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

primitive  spirit  and  when  the  interest  in  sound 
doctrine  was  beginning  to  crowd  out  the  interest 
in  the  evangelization  and  salvation  of  the  world. 
It  is  primarily  a  doctrinal  and  polemical  creed, 
not  an  evangelistic  or  missionary  symbol. 

In  the  second  place,  belonging  as  it  does  to 
another  age,  it  is  very  far  from  reproducing  the 
original  Christian  gospel.  There  is  nothing  in  it 
of  the  personal  fatherhood  of  God :  nothing  of 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus;  nothing  of  the  king- 
dom of  God ;  nothing  of  repentance  and  faith ; 
nothing  of  love  for  God  and  one's  neighbors; 
nothing  of  following  Christ ;  nothing  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  (at  least  in  the  original  text). 
Moreover  in  its  account  of  Christ's  life  it  omits 
his  baptism,  which  is  emphasized  by  all  the 
gospels ;  his  works  of  mercy  and  power  ;  his  ful- 
filment of  prophecy ;  his  preaching  and  founding 
of  the  kingdom.  While  on  the  other  hand  it 
contains  the  virgin  birth,  which  was  believed  at  a 
comparatively  early  day,  to  be  sure,  but  certainly 
did  not  constitute  a  part  of  the  original  preaching 
of  the  disciples. 

In  the  third  place  not  simply  does  the  creed  fail 
to  reproduce  the  original  Christian  gospel  in  its 
true  proportions  and  in  some  of  its  essential 
elements  ;  it  represents  only  a  small  part  of  the 
thinking  even  of  the  age  which  gave  it  birth  and 
it  omits  much  that  was   most  essential  in  that 


THE  APOSTLES'    CREED  35 

thinking.  Nothing  is  said  in  it  about  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ  or  about  salvation  through 
him ;  nothing  about  the  nature  of  Christianity 
and  the  Christian  life ;  nothing  about  the  authority 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  nothing  about  the  coming 
kingdom ;  nothing  about  the  life  eternal,  at  least 
in  the  original  text.  Evidently  it  is  not  a 
summary  of  the  faith  of  the  church  either  of  the 
second   or    of    any  other  century. 

In  the  fourth  place,  while  we  of  to-day  can  re- 
peat parts  of  it,  probably  not  one  of  us  can  repeat 
the  whole  of  it  in  the  sense  which  was  originally 
intended.  The  interpretation  of  creeds  inevitably 
changes  with  time  and  the  changed  interpretation 
must  be  recognized  as  legitimate,  or  the  historic 
creeds  must  be  repudiated  altogether. 

Finally  the  great  value  of  the  creed  above  all 
other  creeds  which  the  church  possesses  is  its 
emphasis  upon  the  historic  figure,  Jesus  Christ. 
We  may  well  congratulate  ourselves  that  the  great 
heresy  of  the  second  century  was  the  denial  of 
the  reality  of  Christ's  humanity,  for  we  owe  to 
it  a  distinct  and  unequivocal  statement  of  Christ's 
real  manhood  in  a  creed  which  for  simplicity  and 
compactness  has  never  been  surpassed,  and  which 
has  been  handed  down  through  the  centuries  and 
has  been  reverenced  by  half  of  Christendom  as 
the  creed  of  the  apostles  themselves.  Perhaps  to 
it  more  than  to  anything  else  —  more  even  than 


36  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

to  the  gospels,  which  were  not  widely  read  in  the 
middle  ages — we  owe  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  and  always  has  been  the  object  of  the  Chris- 
tian's faith,  and  that  his  figure  has  never  been 
completely  lost  even  when  the  true  gospel  has 
been  most  overlaid  with  scholastic  philosophy  or 
with  sacramentarianism  and  ecclesiasticism. 


CRITICAL   NOTES 


CRITICAL    NOTES 


The  Text  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  in  the 
Fourth  Century 

The  most  explicit  and  definite  testimony  which 
we  have  to  the  existence  and  form  of  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  is  in  Rufinus'  Expositio  Symbolic 
which  was  written  about  400  a.d.  In  this  work, 
which  is  a  commentary  upon  the  creed  as  used  in 
the  church  of  Aquileia  in  Rufinus'  time,  the  author 
gives  the  text  of  the  Aquileian  creed  and  points 
out  its  variations  from  the  creed  of  the  church  of 
Rome.  It  is  thus  possible  to  reconstruct  the  latter 
as  it  existed  in  Rufinus'  day,  at  least  so  far  as  its 
substance  goes.  It  is  evident  that  Rufinus  calls 
attention  to  all  the  variations  that  are  of  any 
importance,  but  there  may  have  been  differences 
of  mere  verbiage  which  he  says  nothing  about. 
His  creed  is  given  by  Hahn,  §  36,  with  the  addi- 
tions to  the  Roman  creed  indicated  by  italics. 
Compare  also  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  60  seq. 

1  Migne,  Patr.  Lat.,  Vol.  XXL,  col.  335-386;  English  translation 
in  the  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  2nd  series,  Vol.  III.,  p. 
541  seq. 


40  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

About  the  year  337  a.d.  Marcellus  of  Ancyra 
wrote  a  letter  to  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  which 
has  been  preserved  by  Epiphanius,  Haer.,  72.  The 
letter  was  written  by  Marcellus  to  defend  himself 
from  charges  of  heresy  which  had  been  preferred 
against  him,  and  contains  a  creed,  which  is  given 
by  Hahn,  §  17  (cf.  also  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  64  seq.). 
Marcellus  does  not  say  where  he  got  this  creed. 
Indeed,  he  introduces  it  abruptly  without  preface  of 
any  kind.  But  it  is  clear  that  he  did  not  compose 
it  for  the  occasion  as  a  summary  of  his  own 
personal  faith,  for  it  has  no  direct  bearing  upon 
the  questions  at  issue  between  him  and  his  oppo- 
nents, and  one  might  accept  the  whole  of  it  and 
still  take  either  side  in  the  controversy.  The  only 
plausible  explanation  of  the  insertion  of  the  creed 
without  preface  or  description  is  that  it  was  the 
recognized  creed  of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  that 
Marcellus  hoped  to  establish  his  orthodoxy  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Roman  bishop  by  declaring  his 
acceptance  of  it  in  full.  And  a  comparison  of  it 
with  the  Roman  creed  as  found  in  Rufinus  con- 
firms this  conclusion,  for  the  two  agree  almost 
verbatim ;  the  only  important  differences  being 
the  omission  of  irarepa  in  the  first  article  of  Mar- 
cellus' creed  and  the  addition  of  ^m^v  ollcoplov  at 
the  end. 

Three  other  witnesses  to  the  text  of  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  are  found  in  three  manuscripts  of 


FOURTH   CENTURY  TEXT  41 

the  early  middle  ages,  one  Greek  and  two  Latin, 
the  first  known  as  the  Psalterium  iEthelstani,  the 
second  as  the  Codex  Laudianus,  and  the  third 
called  by  Kattenhusch  the  Codex  Swainsonii,  be- 
cause discovered  by  Swainson.  (See  Hahn,  §§  18, 
20,  23  ;  and  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  64  seq.)  The  manu- 
scripts say  nothing  about  the  source  from  whence 
they  draw  the  creed,  but  the  agreement  is  so 
complete  between  the  three  texts  and  the  text 
of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  given  by  Rufinus  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  are  reproducing 
the  same  symbol.  These  five  witnesses  enable  us 
to  reconstruct  with  considerable  accuracy  the  text 
of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  as  it  existed  in  the 
fourth  century.  The  Psalterium  iEthelstani,  the 
Codex  Laudianus  and  the  Codex  Swainsonii  agree 
with  Rufinus  over  against  Marcellus  in  having 
iraripa  (patrem)  in  the  first  article  and  in  omitting 
IcjTjv  oldiviov  in  the  last.  The  text  of  Epiphanius 
is  very  corrupt  just  at  the  point  where  the  letter  of 
Marcellus  is  quoted,  so  that  the  variations  may  be 
due  to  textual  errors  in  Epiphanius  ;  or  Marcel- 
lus, who  had  very  likely  first  seen  the  Roman  creed 
during  a  recent  visit  in  Rome  and  now  quoted  it 
from  memory,  may  have  misquoted  it  at  the  two 
points  in  question.  At  any  rate  it  may  be  regarded 
as  certain  that  the  phrase  ^corjv  alcoviov  was  not  in 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  at  the  time  Marcellus  wrote, 
for  the  three  later  witnesses  all  omit  it,  and  it  is 


42  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

inconceivable  that  it  should  have  been  in  the  creed 
originally  and  have  been  later  omitted  and  then 
found  a  place  again  in  the  enlarged  form  of 
the  creed  which  we  now  know  as  the  Apostles' 
creed.  As  the  phrase  had  a  place  in  all  the  east- 
ern creeds  of  Marcellus'  day  it  was  easy  for  it 
to  slip  in  inadvertently  when  he  quoted  the 
Roman  symbol.  So  far  as  the  omission  of  iraripa 
is  concerned  it  is  possible,  of  course,  that  the 
word  did  not  belong  to  the  creed  when  Marcel- 
lus wrote,  but  was  added  before  the  time  of 
Ruhnus.  But,  as  will  be  shown  later  (see  p.  99), 
it  is  altogether  probable  that  it  was  in  the  ori- 
ginal text  of  the  creed  and  its  omission,  there- 
fore, was  doubtless  due  to  an  oversight  on  the 
part  of  Marcellus  himself  or  of  some  scribe.  We 
may  assume  then  that  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  ran 
substantially  as  follows  in  the  time  of  Marcellus 
and  Rufinus  : 

mcrreuo)  ets  %eov  irarepa1  iravroKpdropa '  koX  €19 
'Kpiorbv  'lr)<rovv,  top2  vlbv  avrov  tov  fjiovoyevfj,  tov 
Kvpiov  y)\LtoV)  tov  yevviqOivTa  e/c  TrvevfjuaTo^  dyiov 
koX  Ma/Has  rrjs  irapOivov,  tov  eVi  Uovtlov  HlXcitov 
crTavpcoOivTOL  KaX  rac^eWa,3  Trj  TpLTrj  rjfxepa  dva- 
crTavTa  e/c4  veKpcov,  dvafidvTa  €i?  tovs  ovpavovs, 
KaOrjfjievov5  iv  8e£ta  tov  7rarpo9,  odev  epyer ai  Kplvou6 

1  Marcellus  omits  nare'pa.  2  Psalterium  iEthelstani  omits  tov. 
8  Marcellus  has  itdi  before  tt)  rprnj  rjpepa.  4  Marcellus  has  rcov 
before  peKpav.     5  Marcellus  has  koI  before  KaOrjpeuov.     G  Marcellus 


FOURTH  CENTURY   TEXT  43 

£gWgi9  koX  veKpovs  '  /cat  eis  irvev^ia  ayiov?  ayiav 
iKKkrjcriav,  acfrecnv  dfiapncov,  crap/cos  avdarracnv? 

Credo  in  Deum  patrem  omnipotentem ; x  et  in 
Christum  Jesum,2  filium  ejus  unicum,3  dominum 
nostrum,4  qui  natus  est  deSpiritu  Sancto  et5 Maria 
virgine,  qui  sub  Pontio  Pilato  cruciflxus  est 6  et 
sepultus,  tertia  die  resurrexit  a  mortuis,  ascen- 
dit  in  coelos,7  sedet 8  ad  dexteram  Patris,  unde 9 
venturus  est  judicare  vivos  et 10  mortuos ;  et  in 
Spiritum  Sanctum,11  sanctam  ecclesiam,  remis- 
sionem  peccatorum,  carnis  resurrectionem. 

The  question  suggests  itself  which  of  these  two 
texts,  the  Latin  or  the  Greek,  is  the  original  and 
which  the  translation.  The  one  is  a  very  careful 
and  literal  reproduction  of  the  other.  The  order 
of  the  words  is  preserved  almost  unchanged  from 
beginning  to  end,  and  the  only  important  differ- 
ence is  in  the  portion  dealing  with  the  career  of 
Christ,  where  the  Latin  has  relative  clauses  and 
the  Greek  participial.  But  even  in  this  part  the 
order  of  the  words  is  identical  in  the  two  versions. 

has  KpLveiv.     7  Marcellus  has  to  ayiov  irvevfia.     8  Marcellus  adds 

farjv  alonviov. 

1  Rufinus  has  in  Deo  patre  omnipotente.  2  Rufinus  has  in  Christo 
Jesu ;  Codex  Swainsonii  has  in  Jesum  Christum.  3  Rufinus  has 
unico  Jilio  ejus.  4  Rufinus  has  Domino  nostro.  5  Rufinus  has  ex. 
6  Rufinus  has  crucifixus  sub  Pontio  Pilato.  7  Codex  Laudianus 
has  in  coelis.  8  Codex  Swainsonii  has  sedit.  9  Rufinus  has  inde. 
10  Cod.  Swains,  has  ac.  n  Rufinus  has  et  in  Spiritu  Sancto.  I 
have  noted  all  the  variations  except  the  impossible  case-endings  of 
the  Codex  Laudianus,  which  are  evidently  due  to  ignorance  of 
Latin  syntax,  as,  e.  g.,  ad  dexiera  patrls. 


44  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

A  careful  comparison  of  the  two  in  detail  seems  to 
show  that  the  Greek  and  not  the  Latin  was  the 
original  and  that  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  The  words  TravTOKparcop  and  fAovoyevijs  are 
much  more  pregnant  and  expressive  than  the  Latin 
words  omnipotens  and  unicus,  and  are  more  likely 
to  have  been  the  originals  than  vice  versa.  Early 
Christian  literature  shows  that  TravTOKparcop  was 
commonly  translated  by  omnipotens  and  iLovoyevrjs 
by  unions,  while  the  more  general  Latin  words 
would  hardly  suggest  the  rarer  and  more  special 
Greek  words. 

2.  The  position  of  the  phrases  "  under  Pontius 
Pilate  "  and  u  on  the  third  day  "  is  emphatic  in 
the  Greek,  but  not  in  the  Latin.  On  the  other 
hand  the  phrase  "  into  heaven  "  has  the  position 
of  emphasis  in  the  Latin  but  not  in  the  Greek. 
We  can  see  that  there  was  good  reason  for  em- 
phasizing the  former  phrases,  to  make  the  time 
explicit,  but  there  can  hardly  have  been  a  reason 
for  emphasizing  the  last  phrase,  for  whither  should 
Christ  have  ascended  if  not  into  heaven  ?  It  is  un- 
likely that  in  all  these  cases  the  translation,  while 
following  exactly  the  order  of  the  original,  should 
be  more  expressive  than  that  original. 

3.  "OOev  ep^erai  Kplvai  £aWas  /cat  veKpovs  is 
good  Greek,  but  the  corresponding  clause  wide 
venturus  est  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos  is  not  good 
Latin.     It  is  true  that  the  construction  does  occur 


FOURTH  CENTURY  TEXT  45 

occasionally  in  Latin  under  the  influence  of  the 
Greek,  but  the  natural  Latin  expression  would  be 
wide  ad  judicandos  (or  judicatarus)  vivos  et  mortuos 
venturus  est,  and  it  is  certainly  unlikely  that  the 
translation,  while  agreeing  so  closely  with  the  con- 
struction and  the  order  of  words  of  the  original, 
should  be  truer  to  the  genius  of  the  language  than 
the  original  upon  which  it  was  based. 

4.  Finally,  as  will  appear  later,  the  Old  Roman 
Symbol  was  probably  composed  in  Rome  not  far 
from  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  at  that 
time  Greek  not  Latin  was  the  language  in  com- 
monest use  among  the  Christians  of  Rome. 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations  we  may  regard 
as  well  founded  the  conclusion  of  Caspari,  Katten- 
busch  and  most  other  scholars,  that  the  Greek  text 
is  the  original  and  the  Latin  the  translation  (cf. 
Caspari,  Quellen,  III.  pp.  74  seq.,  139  seq.,  and 
Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  67  seq.). 


46  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

II 

The  Date  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol 

The  testimony  of  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  carries 
us  back  beyond  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 
Possible  traces  of  the  existence  of  the  Symbol  tes- 
tified to  by  him  and  by  Rufinus  are  found  in  the 
third  century  in  the  writings  of  Dionysius  of  Rome, 
of  Novatian  and  of  Hippolytus  (see  Kattenbusch, 
II.  p.  354-372),  and  Cyprian  of  Carthage  refers 
explicitly  to  a  symbol  in  use  both  in  Carthage 
and  in  Rome,  but  he  indicates  its  contents  only 
in  part.  Thus  in  Ep.  69  he  says  "  Quod  si 
aliquis  illud  opponit  ut  dicat,  eandem  Novatianum 
legem  tenere,  quam  catholica  ecclesia  teneat, 
eodem  symbolo  quo  et  nos  baptizare,  eundem  nosse 
Deum  patrem,  eundem  Filium  Christum,  eundem 
spiritum  sanctum,  ac  propter  hoc  usurpare  eum 
potestatem  baptizandi  posse,  quod  videatur  inter- 
rogatione  baptismi  a  nobis  non  discrepare,  sciat 
quisquis  hoc  opponendum  putat,  primum  non  esse 
unam  nobis  et  schismaticis  symboli  legem  neque 
eandem  interrogationem.  Nam  cum  dicunt:  Cre- 
dis  in  remissionem  peccatorum  et  vitam  aeternam 
per  sanctam  ecclesiam  ?  mentiuntur  interrogation, 
quando  non  habeant  ecclesiam  "  ;  and  in  Ep.  70  : 
"  Sed  et  ipsa   interrogatio,  quae  fit  in  baptismo, 


DATE   OF   THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  47 

testis  est  veritatis.  Nam  cum  dicimus :  Credis  in 
vitam  aeternam  et  remissionem  peccatorum  per 
sanctam  ecclesiam?  intelligimus,  remissionem  pec- 
catorum non  nisi  in  ecclesia  dari,  apud  haereticos 
autem,  ubi  ecclesia  non  sit,  non  posse  peccata 
dimitti."     (Cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  372  seq.) 

But  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian  we  have  defi- 
nite testimony  not  only  to  the  existence  of  a 
symbol,  but  also  to  its  text.  And  while  its  form 
as  reproduced  by  Tertullian  is  not  identical  at 
every  point  with  the  form  given  by  Rufinus  and 
Marcellus  it  is  evidently  in  large  part  the  same 
symbol  as  theirs.  The  following  passages  make 
this  sufficiently  clear.  De  Praescriptione  Haereti- 
corimi,  13 :  "  Regula  est  autem  fidei,  ut  jam  hinc 
quid  defendamus  profiteamur,  ilia  scilicet  qua 
creditur  unum  omnino  deum  esse,  nee  aliurn 
praeter  mundi  conditorem,"  etc.  (for  the  remainder 
of  the  passage,  see  p.  86);  ibid.,  36:  "Si  autem 
Italiae  adjaces,  habes  Romam,  unde  nobis  quoque 
auctoritas  praesto  est  .  .  .  Videamus  quid  didic- 
erit,  quid  docuerit,  cum  Africanis  quoque  ecclesiis 
contesserarit.  Unum  deum  dominum  novit,"  etc. 
(for  the  remainder  of  the  passage,  see  p.  87) ; 
De  Virginibus  Velandis,  1 :  "  Regula  quidem  fidei 
una  omnino  est,  sola  immobilis  et  irreformabilis,  cre- 
dendi  scilicet  in  unicum  deum  omnipotentem,"  etc. 
(for  the  remainder  of  the  passage,  see  p.  85) ; 
Adversus  Praxeam,  2 :   "  Nos  vero  et  semper   et 


48  THE  APOSTLES'1   CREED 

nunc  magis,  ut  instructiores  per  paracletum,  de- 
ductorem  scilicet  omnis  veritatis,  unicum  quidem 
deum  credimus,"  etc.  (for  the  remainder  of  the 
passage,  see  p.  86);  De  Corona,  3:  "Dehinc  ter 
mergitamur  amplius  aliquid  respondentes  quam 
Dominus  in  evangelio  determinavit ;  "  De  Praescrip- 
tione  Haereticorum,  14:  "Ceterum  manente  forma 
ejus  in  suo  ordine  quantumlibet  quaeras  et  tractes  et 
omnem  libidinem  curiositatis  effundas."  Compare 
also  De  Praescriptione  Haereticorum,  12,  21,  and 
Adv.  Prax.,  3. 

As  there  is  general  agreement  among  scholars 
that  Tertullian  knew  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  discuss  the  matter  more  fully  here, 
but  simply  to  refer  to  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  53  seq. 

The  question  whether  Irenaeus  knew  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  is  more  difficult.  At  the  same 
time,  there  are  good  reasons  for  thinking  that  he 
did.  That  he  knew  and  used,  or  at  any  rate  felt 
the  influence  of,  some  definite  symbol  seems  evi- 
dent from  the  following  considerations  : 1 

1.  He  refers  frequently  to  a  regula  veritatis 
(I.  22  :  1 ;  III.  11 :  1),  or  tradUio  (III.  3:3;  III.  4  : 

1  I  have  used  Harvey's  edition  of  the  works  of  Irenaeus,  but  for 
the  convenience  of  the  reader  I  have  given  the  references  according 
to  the  chapter  divisions  of  Massuet  (the  Benedictine  edition)  and 
Stieren,  which  are  followed  by  the  English  translation  of  Irenaeus 
in  the  "Ante-Nicene  Fathers  "  (published  by  the  Christian  Litera- 
ture Company).  As  these  divisions  are  indicated  by  Harvey  in  the 
margin,  the  passages  referred  to  can  be  found,  whichever  edition  is 
in  the  hands  of  the  reader. 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  49 

2 ;  V.  20 :  1),  or  fides  (I.  10:1;  III.  4 :  2),  whose 
content  he  then  proceeds  to  give  in  a  more  or  less 
definite  and  stereotyped  form.  The  statements 
differ  considerably  in  the  various  passages,  but 
in  every  case  there  is  a  reference  to  One  God 
Almighty  (sometimes  One  God  the  Father  Al- 
mighty) and  in  three  places,  where  Christ  is 
referred  to  at  some  length,  there  is  practical 
identity,  so  far  at  least  as  substance  goes.  This 
is  particularly  noticeable  in  I.  10 :  1  and  III. 
4  :  2,  the  most  definite  of  all  the  formulations, 
where  there  are  elaborate  references  to  Christ, 
which  agree  closely,  and  where  in  both  cases 
Irenseus  passes  immediately  from  the  birth  to  the 
passion.  There  are,  moreover,  certain  phrases 
which  recur  in  some  of  the  passages  mentioned 
as  well  as  in  others  where  Irenseus  states  his 
faith. 

2.  Irenseus'  formulations  have  at  least  in  three 
cases  the  threefold  structure,  which  suggests  a 
baptismal  symbol.  Thus  in  I.  10:  1;  IV.  33:  7; 
V.  20:   1. 

3.  We  have  the  statement  in  I.  9 :  4  that  the 
regula  veritatis  (kolvcov  ttjs  a\r)6eia<;)  was  received 
"  through  baptism,"  and  this,  taken  in  connection 
with  1. 10  :  1,  which  immediately  follows,  points  to 
a  definite,  fixed  formula. 

But  if  Irenseus  knew  any  creed  it  is  evident 
that  it  was  not  authoritative  in  such  a  sense  that 

4 


50  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

he  felt  obliged  to  follow  it  literally.  It  seems  to 
have  influenced  him  and  to  have  reflected  itself  in 
his  writings  only  as  any  convenient  and  familiar 
summary  of  the  common  faith  of  the  church 
might  have  done.  Can  we  then  determine  its 
content  and  form  ? 

More  or  less  definite  formulations  occur  in  I. 
10  :  1 ;  I.  22  :  1 ;  III.  1 :  2  ; III.  3:  3  ;  III.  4:2;  III. 
11:1;  III.  16  :  6  ;  IV.  33  :  7  ;  V.  20  :  1.  All  of 
them  begin  with  a  declaration  of  faith  in  God, 
which  is  followed  by  more  or  less  elaborate  refer- 
ences to  Christ,  and  in  I.  10  :  1 ;  III.  4:2;  IV.  33  : 
7 ;  V.  20  :  1,  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well.  In  the 
light  of  these  passages  we  may  reconstruct  ten- 
tatively as  follows : 

1.    Et?  £va  6eov  iraripa  iravroKparopa, 

This  entire  article  is  found  only  in  I.  10  :  1,  the 
most  elaborate  statement  of  the  creed.  Eis  eva 
Oebv  (in  unum  deum)  is  found  in  all  the  formula- 
tions ;  iraripa  (patrem)  in  I.  10 :  1 ;  III.  16  :  6  ;  V. 
20 :  1 ;  iravTOKpaTopa  (omnipotentem)  in  I.  10:1; 
I.  22:   1;  III.   3:3;  III.    11  :   1 ;  IV.  33:   7. 

Various  additions  relating  to  the  creation  appear 
in  many  passages  :  thus  qui  fecit  coelum  et  terram  et 
mare  et  omnia  quae  in  eis  sunt,  I.  10  :  1 ;  qui  omnia 
condidit  per  verbum  suum,  et  aptavit,  et  fecit  ex  eo, 
quod  non  erat,  etc.,  I.  15  ;  qui  per  verbum  suum  omnia 
fecit,  et  visibilia  et  invisibilia,  III.  11 :  7  ;  factor  em 
coeli  et   terrae,  plasmatorem   hominis,  qui  induxerit 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  51 

cataclystnum,  etc.,  III.  3:3;  fabricatorem  coeli  et  terrae, 
et  omnium  quae  in  eis  sunt,  III.  4:2;  ex  quo  omnia 
IV.  33:7.  The  wide  variations  at  this  point,  when 
compared  with  the  stereotyped  phrase  which  pre- 
cedes, suggest  that  we  have  here  additions  of 
Irenseus'  own,  which  are  just  what  we  should 
expect  over  against  the  Gnostics  whom  he  was 
endeavoring  to  refute. 

2.  Eis   \_ev<x\  Xpicrbv  'Irjcrovv,  top  vlov  rov  deov, 

[KVpiOV  TJfJLOJv]. 

The  article  appears  in  this  form,  but  without 
Kvpiov  rjfjicov,  in  I.  10  :  1.  Ei>a  before  XpicrTov  is 
found  also  in  III.  1 :  2.  and  III.  16  :  6,  but  is  want- 
ing in  III.  4  :  2,  IV.  33  :  7  and  V.  20  :  1.  Its  pres- 
ence in  the  creed  is  doubtful,  for  its  occurrence  in 
III.  16 :  6  is  clearly  due  to  Irenaeus'  argument, 
and  it  may  well  have  been  added  in  the  other  two 
passages  under  the  same  influence. 

Kvpiov  rjfjiwv  is  found  in  III.  16:6  and  IV.  33:7; 
and  though  not  in  the  formulated  statement  in 
I.  10  :  1,  it  is  twice  joined  with  XpicrTov  'Irjcrovv 
farther  on  in  the  same  passage.  It  is  therefore 
possible  that  it  stood  in  the  creed. 

3.  rhv  yevvTj64vra  €K  [Mapias  T775]  irapOivov. 
The  substance  of  this  article,  though  not  in  these 

exact  words,  appears  in  I.  10 :  1  {tt^v  Ik  wapOevov 
yevvrjcnv,  —  the  grammatical  construction  demand- 
ing the  noun  instead  of  the  participle) ;  III.  4 :  2 
(ex  virgine  generationem) ;  and  also,  not  as  a  part  of 


52  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

a  formulated  creed,  in  III.  16  :  5  (qui  ex  Maria 
natus  est)  and  IV.  9  :  2  (qui  ex  Maria).  It  is  signifi- 
cant that  no  reference  is  made  in  any  of  these 
passages  to  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  though  Irenaeus  accepted  the  ac- 
counts in  Matthew  and  Luke,  as  is  evident,  for 
instance,  from  III.  21 :  4. 

4.    Toi>  ttolOovtcl  irrl  Hovtlov  HiXdrov. 

The  passion  is  mentioned  in  I.  10 :  1  (kolL  to 
7ra0os),  in  III.  4 :  2  (passus  sub  Pontio  Pilato),  and 
in  III.  16 :  6  (qui  et  passus  est  pro  nobis),  the  only 
passages  in  the  list  of  creedal  statements  given 
above,  in  which  details  of  Christ's  historic  career 
are  mentioned.  In  all  these  cases  the  reference  to 
the  passion  follows  immediately  the  reference  to 
the  birth  (in  III.  16  :  6  to  the  incarnation),  and  the 
same  is  true  of  III.  16  :  5  and  IV.  9 :  2,  where  the 
passion  is  also  mentioned  (qui  et  passus  est).  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  in  III.  18  :  3,  after  quoting 
1  Cor.  XV.  3,  4,  Irenaeus,  in  repeating  the  sub- 
stance of  what  Paul  has  said,  substitutes  passus  est 
for  mortuus  est,  referring  to  the  passion  instead  of 
the  death. 

Sub  Pontio  Pilato  is  found  with  passus  in  III.  4  :  2, 
but  not  in  I.  10 :  1.  Its  occurrence  in  the  former 
passage  suggests  that  it  had  a  place  in  the  creed, 
for  there  was  no  particular  reason  otherwise  for 
Irenaeus  to  mention  it.  The  full  name  is  found 
nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  either  with  passus 


DATE  OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  53 

or  crucifixusy  but  in  referring  to  Christ,  Irenseus 
adds  u  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  "  in  II.  32 :  4 
and  V.  12  :  5,  and  "  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate  " 
in  III.  12:  9.  It  is  thus  quite  probable  that  it 
formed  a  part  of  the  creed  with  which  Irenseus 
was  acquainted,  and  was  omitted  in  I.  10 :  1 
because  of  its  unimportance. 

5.    Ka!  avao-ravTa  Ik  vtKpoiv. 

The  resurrection  is  mentioned  immediately  after 
the  passion  in  I.  10 :  1  (koll  rfjp  iyepcnv  4k  veKpwv : 
resarrectionem  a  mortids),  in  III.  4:2  (et  resurgens), 
and  in  III.  16  :  6  (et  surrexit  propter  nos).  III.  16:5 
may  also  be  referred  to,  where  we  read  et  eundem 
hunc  passum  resurrexisse.  In  III.  18:  3  after  quot- 
ing I.  Cor.  XV.  3,  4,  Irenseus  continues,  "  It  is  clear 
then  that  Paul  knew  no  other  Christ  but  him  who 
suffered  (ttolOovtcl  instead  of  Paul's  airiOavev)  and 
was  buried  and  rose  again  (dvaaTavra  instead  of 
Paul's  iyijyeprat),  and  was  born,  whom  also  he  calls 
man."  The  use  of  avao-rdvra  here  instead  of 
iyijyepTaL  is  worthy  of  notice.  In  both  cases  the 
old  Latin  version  of  Irenaeus  has  resiwrezit.  In 
II.  32  :  3,  where  there  is  no  sign  of  a  formulated 
creed,  we  read  Dominas  surrexit  a  mortids  in  tertia 
die  .  .  .  .  et  discipulis  se  manifestavit,  et  videntibus 
eis  receptas  est  in  coelum. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Christ's  resurrection 
had  a  place  in  Irenseus'  creed,  but  the  exact  form 
of   the  article  is  uncertain.     ' Avaardpra    is    sug- 


54  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

gested  by  III.  18 :  3,  and  e/c  veKpwv  by  I.  10  :  1  and 
II.  32  :  3. 

6.  ' Ava\7jfJi(f)0€VTa  eh  tovs  ovpavovs. 

The  ascension  is  mentioned  only  in  I.  10  :  1 
(/cat  ttjv  evaapKov  ets  tovs  ovpavovs  avd\rj\\fiv  :  et 
in  came  in  coelos  ascensionem),  III.  4 :  2  (et  in  clari- 
iate  receptus),  and  II.  32  :  3  (receptus  est  in  coelum)  ; 
but  the  reference  to  it  in  these  passages  is  sufficient 
evidence  of  its  occurrence  in  the  creed.  The  use 
of  avd\y]\\fiv  in  1. 10:  1  and  of  the  passive  participle 
receptus  in  the  two  other  passages  points  to  the 
passive  participle  av  a\y]  ^6  ivr  a  instead  of  the 
active  avafiavra. 

7.  'Ej/  ttj  So^rj  rod  Harpos  ip^pp.evov  avacrrrjcrai 
/cat  Kpivai  TravTas  av0pa>7rov<;. 

That  Irenaeus'  creed  contained  a  reference  to  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  cannot  be  doubted,  but  the 
form  of  the  article  is  very  uncertain.  In  I.  10:  1 
we  have  the  elaborate  passage  :  "  et  de  coelis  in 
gloria  Patris  adventum  ejus  (eV  ttj  Soffl  tov  UaTpbs 
TTapovcriav  avrov),  ad  recapitulanda  universa,  et 
resuscitandam  omnem  carnem  humani  generis 
(dz/acrnjcrat  iracrav  crap/ca  7rao"r)<$  avd paiTTOTrjTos),  ut 
Christo  Jesu  domino  nostro,  et  deo,  et  salvatori,  et 
regi,  secundum  placitum  Patris  invisibilis  omne 
genu  curvet  coelestium,  et  terrestrium,  et  inferno- 
rum,  et  omnis  lingua  confiteatur  ei,  et  judicium  jus- 
tum  in  omnibus  faciat :  spiritalia  quid  em  nequitiae, 
et   angelos    transgressos,    atque   apostatas    factos, 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  55 

et  impios,  et  injustos,  et  iniquos,  et  blasphemos 
homines  in  aeternum  ignem  mittat :  justis  autem 
et  aequis,  et  praecepta  ejus  servantibus,  et  in  dilec- 
tione  ejus  perseverantibus,  quibusdam  quidem  ab 
initio,  quibusdam  autem  ex  poenitentia,  vitam 
donans  ineorruptelam  loco  muneris  conferat,  et 
claritatem  aeternam  circumdet ;  "  in  III.  4:2:  "in 
gloria  venturus  salvator  eorum  qui  salvantur,  et 
judex  eorum  qui  judicantur,  et  mittens  in  ignem 
aeternum  transfiguratores  veritatis,  et  contemtores 
Patris  sui  et  adventus  ejus  ;  "  in  III.  16  :  6  :  "  et 
rursus  venturus  est  in  gloria  Patris,  ad  resuscitan- 
dam  universam  carnem,  et  ad  ostensionem  salutis, 
et  regulam  justi  judicii  ostendere  omnibus  qui  sub 
ipso  facti  sunt ;  "  and  in  V.  20  :  1  :  "  et  eundem 
exspectantibus  adventum  domini,  et  eandem  salu- 
tem  totius  hominis,  id  est  animae  et  corporis,  susti- 
nentibus." 

That  Irenseus'  creed  contained  a  reference  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh  is  rendered  practically 
certain  by  I.  10  :  1  and  III.  16  :  6,  where  it  is 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  purposes  of  the  return  of 
Christ  (I.  10  :  1 :  adventum  ejus  ad  recapitulanda  uni- 
versa,  et  resusciiandam  omnem  carnem  humani  generis  ; 
III.  16:6:  et  rursus  venturus  est  in  gloria  Patris,  ad 
resusciiandam  universam  carnem),  and  also  by  V.  20 : 1, 
where  it  is  mentioned  separately,  but  immediately 
after  a  reference  to  Christ's  coming  {et  eundem 
exspectantibus   adventum  domini,  et  eandem   sakdem 


56  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

totius  hominis,  id  est  animae  et  corporis,  siistinentibus). 
In  III.  4 :  2,  the  only  other  passage  where  the 
return  of  Christ  is  mentioned,  there  is  a  reference 
only  to  salvation,  not  specifically  to  the  resurrec- 
tion. Though  the  article  without  doubt  had  a 
place  in  the  creed  used  by  IrenoBus,  it  is  quite  im- 
possible to  determine  from  his  writings  its  form  or 
its  position  in  the  creed. 

8.    Ei?  7rvevfJLa  ayiov. 

That  the  Holy  Spirit  had  a  place  in  Irenceus' 
creed  is  clear  from  I.  10 :  1  (eU  irvev^a  ayiov), 
IV.  33 :  7  {eU  to  rrvev^a  tov  6eov),  and  V.  20 :  1  {et 
eandem  donationem  Spiritus  scientibus).  That  he 
failed  to  mention  the  Spirit  in  the  many  other 
passages  which  we  have  been  dealing  with  was 
due  doubtless  to  the  fact  that  the  heretics  whom 
he  was  combating  raised  no  difficulties  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Spirit. 

Having  thus  tentatively  reconstructed  the  creed 
used  by  Irenoeus,  let  us  ask  what  is  its  relation  to 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  known  to  Rufinus  and 
Marcel  1  us. 

The  creed  of  Irenseus  agrees  with  R 1  in  mention- 
ing God  Father  almighty ;  Christ  Jesus  his  son  ; 
the  birth  from  a  virgin  ;  the  passion  (in  R  the 
crucifixion)  immediately  after  the  birth  ;  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ ;  the  ascension ;  the  return  of 
Christ  to  judge  ;  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  ;  the 

1  I.  e.,  the  Old  Roman  Symbol. 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  57 

Holy  Spirit.  It  omits  altogether  the  articles  on 
the  session  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  on 
the  church  and  on  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  It 
omits  also  fiovoyevr)  in  article  2 ;  e/c  TrvevfLaTos 
aryiov  in  article  3  ;  aTavpo)6evra  /ecu  racfyevra  in 
article  4  {ttoBovto.  occurring  instead)  ;  and  eV  Tpirr 
rjpepa  in  article  5. 

It  has  no  articles  which  are  not  found  in  R,  but 
in  article  1  it  adds  ez/a  before  Seov  ;  in  article  4  it 
has  iraOovTa  (instead  of  (TTavpcoOepra  /ecu  rac^eVra)  ; 
in  article  6  avakiq^Oivra  instead  of  avafidvTa ; 
and  article  7,  on  the  return  of  Christ,  is  more  elab- 
orate than  in  R  and  quite  different  in  form. 

This  comparison  shows  clearly  that  the  creed  of 
Irenseus  and  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  cannot  be 
independent  of  each  other.  The  resemblances  are 
so  close  and  the  differences  so  few  that  we  must 
assume  that  Irenseus  knew  the  Old  Roman  Symbol 
either  in  the  form  known  to  Rufinus,  or,  as  is  more 
probable,  in  a  briefer  and  somewhat  variant  form. 
Whether  he  knew  it  as  a  creed  in  use  in  the 
church  of  Rome  is  less  certain,  but  his  references 
to  Rome  in  III.  3 :  2  and  3  make  it  very  likely 
chat  he  did.  At  any  rate,  we  have  in  Irenseus  a 
witness  to  the  existence  of  the  creed  we  know  as 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  in  nearly  if  not  quite  its 
present  form  as  early  as  the  year  175.  Upon 
Irenseus'  relation  to  R,  see  also  Kattenbusch,  II. 
p.  25  seq. 


58  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

Let  us  push  our  inquiry  still  further  back  and 
ask  whether  the  creed  was  known  to  Marcion  and 
his  Gnostic  contemporaries. 

Kattenbusch  maintains  that  R  was  already  in 
use  in  Rome  as  a  Regula  Fidel  when  Marcion  came 
thither,  and  that  he  gave  in  his  adherence  to  it 
when  he  joined  the  Catholic  Church  there  (cf.  II. 
p.  86  seq.,  322  seq.).  The  same  view  is  taken  by 
Zahn  (p.  31  seq.).  The  grounds  upon  which  this 
opinion  is  based  seem  to  me  to  need  much  more 
careful  investigation  than  they  have  yet  received. 
Both  Zahn  and  Kattenbusch  make  altogether  too 
easy  work  of  the  matter.  The  only  sources  we 
have  which  throw  any  light  upon  the  question  at 
issue  are  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  particularly 
his  Adversus  Marcionem,  De  Came,  Christi,  and  JDe 
Praescriptione  Haereticorum. 

According  to  Kattenbusch  (II.  p.  86),  who  goes 
into  the  matter  more  carefully  than  Zahn,  Tertul- 
lian's  repeated  references  to  an  epistle  in  which 
Marcion  had  testified  that  his  faith  agreed  with 
the  faith  of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  his  declara- 
tion that  Marcion  after  being  excluded  from  the 
church  had  been  again  admitted  to  the  eonfessio 
paenitentiae,  show  that  Marcion  knew  R,  and  con- 
tinued to  accept  it  in  his  own  way,  even  after  his 
excommunication.  And  this  conclusion  is  con- 
firmed, according  to  Kattenbusch,  by  the  fact  that 
Marcion's  disciples  maintained  "  Marcionem  non 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  59 

tarn  innovasse  regulam  separatione  legis  et  evan- 
gelii,  quam  retro  adulteratam  recurasse "  (Adv. 
Marc,  I.  20),  where  the  context  shows  that  the 
word  regula  was  understood  by  Marcion  in  the 
same  sense  as  by  Tertullian,  that  is  as  referring 
to  R. 

Let  us  first  examine  Marcion 's  letter,  to  which 
Tertullian  appeals  in  support  of  his  claim  that 
Marcion  originally  agreed  with  the  faith  of  the 
Roman  church.  Tertullian  is  our  only  witness  to 
the  existence  of  such  a  letter,  and  he  mentions  it 
in  only  three  passages  —  Adv.  Marc,  LI:  "  Non 
negabunt  discipuli  ejus  primam  illius  fidem  nobis- 
cum  fuisse,  ipsius  litteris  testibus ; "  De  Came 
Christi,  2 :  "  Excidisti,  rescindendo  quod  retro 
credidisti,  sicut  et  ipse  confiteris  in  quadam  epis- 
tula  et  tui  non  negant  et  nostri  probant ; "  Adv. 
Marc,  IV.  4  :  "  Quid  nunc,  si  negaverint  Marcion- 
itae  primam  apud  nos  fidem  ejus  ad  versus  epistu- 
lam  quoque  ipsius  ?  Quid  si  nee  epistulam 
agnoverint  ?  " 

It  seems  clear  from  the  very  general  nature 
of  Tertullian's  references  to  the  letter  in  these 
passages  and  from  the  fact  that  he  nowhere  quotes 
directly  from  it,  either  that  he  had  never  seen  the 
letter,  or  that  it  was  of  so  general  a  character  as 
not  to  lend  itself  to  quotation.  If  Tertullian  had 
not  himself  seen  it,  the  authenticity  of  the  letter 
must  be  recognized  to  be  at  best  very  doubtful,  and 


60  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

his  words  in  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  4  :  "  Quid  nunc  si  nee 
epistulam  agnoverint,"  go  to  confirm  the  doubt. 
Kattenbusch  and  Zahn  have  strangely  failed  to 
call  attention  to  this  circumstance  and  have  treated 
the  letter  as  of  unquestioned  authenticity. 

But,  assuming  that  Tertullian  had  actually  seen 
the  letter  and  that  it  was  authentic,  what  must 
have  been  its  character  ?  Had  it  contained  a  defi- 
nite regula  or  creed,  either  R  or  one  of  Marcion's 
own,  or  had  it  definitely  stated  Marcion's  belief 
on  any  important  points  in  which  he  afterward 
departed  from  the  faith  of  the  church,  Tertullian 
would  certainly  have  quoted  from  it  in  his  effort 
to  show  that  Marcion  had  once  held  the  faith  of 
the  Roman  church.  And  had  it  contained  the 
explicit  statement  that  Marcion  accepted  R,  Ter- 
tullian would  have  said  so  in  clearer  terms  than 
he  uses.  The  words  :  "  primam  illius  fidem  nobis- 
cum  fuisse;  "  "primam  apud  nos  fidem  ejus;" 
"  excidisti,  rescindendo  quod  retro  credidisti  "  are 
quite  too  indefinite  to  establish  Marcion's  accept- 
ance of  R,  or  any  other  particular  creed.  More- 
over if  Marcion  had  explicitly  asserted  his 
acceptance  of  R,  or  if  he  had  distinctly  said  that 
he  once  agreed  with  the  faith  of  the  Roman 
church,  or  of  the  church  at  large,  his  followers 
could  not  have  denied  that  he  did,  as  some  of  them 
seem  to  have  done  even  while  not  denying  the 
authenticity  of  the  letter  (cf.  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  4). 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  61 

In  the  light  of  these  considerations  it  would  seem 
that  the  letter  if  authentic  contained  at  most  only 
a  general  reference  to  the  fact  that  Marcion's 
faith  had  undergone  a  change  since  the  early  days 
of  his  Christian  life,  a  reference  which  would  of 
course  justify  his  opponents  in  claiming  that  he 
had  once  agreed  completely  with  the  faith  of  the 
church  and  had  afterward  departed  from  it,  while 
it  would  make  it  possible  for  his  disciples  to  deny 
that  he  had  ever  accepted  that  faith.  It  is  clear 
then  that  we  are  not  justified  in  using  the  letter  as 
a  proof  that  Marcion  ever  knew  and  accepted  R.1 

Another  proof  that  Marcion  knew  and  accepted 
R  is  found  by  Kattenbusch  in  De  Praeswvpiione 
Haereticonim,  30,  where  it  is  said  that  Marcion  and 
Valentinus  were  at  first  believers  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Catholic  church  (in  catholicae  primo  dodrinam 
credidisse),  until  on  account  of  their  ever  restless 
curiosity,  with  which  they  infected  the  brethren, 
they  were  more  than  once  expelled  from  the 
church,  and  that  afterward  Marcion  confessed 
repentance  and  agreed  to  the  condition  imposed 

1  If  the  letter  was  of  the  character  indicated,  it  is  plain  that  it 
cannot  have  been  addressed  to  the  Roman  chnrch  at  the  time 
Marcion  applied  for  membership  with  the  purpose  of  allaying  sus- 
picion and  so  making  it  possible  for  the  church  to  accept  him,  as 
Kattenbusch  holds.  So  that  Kattenbusch's  description  of  it  as  a 
letter  "  worin  Marcion  dieser  Gemeinde  [i.  e.,  the  church  of  Rome] 
ihre  fides  als  seine  fides  bezeugt  habe  "  must  be  pronounced  alto- 
gether inaccurate.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of  Zahn's  reference 
to  the  letter,  Das  Apostolische  Symbolum,  p.  31. 


62  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

upon  him,  that  he  should  be  received  back  if  he 
restored  to  the  church  those  whom  he  had  led 
astray  ("Postmodum  Marcion  paenitentiam  con- 
fessus  cum  condicioni  datae  sibi  occurrit,  ita 
pacem  recepturus,  si  ceteros  quos  perditioni  erud- 
isset  ecclesiae  restitueret,  morte  praeventus  est"  ). 
I  am  quite  unable  to  find  any  hint  of  a  creed  or 
symbol  in  this  passage  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
understand  how  Kattenbusch  can  regard  it  as 
supporting  his  claim  that  Marcion  knew  and 
accepted  R.  He  says  "  Tertullian  redet  wiederholt 
von  dem  Briefe,  worin  Marcion  dieser  Gemeinde 
Hire  fides  als  seine  fides  bezeugt  habe,  sowie  davon, 
dass  er,  der  wegen  seiner  inquieta  curiositas 
'  dauernd  '  ausgeschlossen  worden  sei,  zuletzt  doch 
noch  wieder  zur  *  confessio  paenitentiae '  zugelas- 
sen  ware.  Darin  liegt  indirekt,  dass  er  am 
Symbol  in  seiner  Weise  dauernd  festgehalten  hat." 
These  words  seem  to  show  that  he  assumes  that 
the  phrase  paenitentiam  confessus  points  to  the 
acceptance  of  R  by  Marcion,  but  the  assumption 
is  entirely  gratuitous. 

Kattenbusch  refers  again  in  support  of  his  con- 
tention that  Marcion  knew  and  accepted  R,  to  Adv. 
Marc.,  I.  20,  where  Tertullian  says  "  Aiunt  enim 
Marcionem  non  tarn  innovasse  regulam  separa- 
tione  legis  et  evangelii  quam  retro  adulteratam 
recurasse."  Kattenbusch  takes  regula  in  this 
passage  as  referring  to  R,  but  regula  is  a  word  of 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  63 

varying  connotation  in  Tertullian,  and  the  context 
alone  can  determine  its  meaning  in  any  particular 
passage.  A  brief  examination  of  Tertullian's  use 
of  the  word  will  make  this  plain. 

1.  Regula  is  used  of  a  definite  creed  or  formula 
in  Adv.  Prax.,  2,  9  ;  regula  fidei  in  Adv.  Prax.,  3 ; 
De  Praescriptione,  12,  13 ;  De  Virg.  Vel.,  1 ;  De 
Monogamia,  2 ;  regula  fidei  ant  spei  in  De  Jejunio, 
1,  where  the  addition  of  spei  makes  it  a  little 
doubtful  whether  a  definite  creed  is  meant. 

2.  Regula  is  used  in  other  senses  in  the  follow- 
ing passages :  Adv.  Marc,  I.  1,  where  it  refers  to 
Marcion's  teaching  in  general,  for  Tertullian  says 
he  will  report  Marcion's  regula,  and  what  he 
actually  does  is  to  enter  into  a  general  discussion 
of  his  system  and  of  his  Biblical  criticism.  The 
same  general  use  of  the  word  occurs  in  Adv.  Marc, 
IV.  17,  where  Marcion's  disciples  are  said  to  have 
deserted  the  regula  of  their  master  in  abandoning 
his  view  of  the  judgment  because  of  its  incon- 
sistencies. There  is  no  hint  of  a  creed  here,  but 
only  of  Marcion's  teaching  in  regard  to  the 
judgment  and  God's  relation  to  it  contained  in 
his  Antitheses.  In  Adv.  Marc,  I.  5,  regula  signi- 
fies a  rule  or  law  of  logic.  In  Adv.  Marc,  I.  22,  it 
means  a  fixed  principle  or  method  of  examining 
God's  goodness.  In  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  5,  it  refers  to 
the  law  according  to  which  the  Galatians  were 
corrected  by  Paul.     In  the  same  chapter  again  it 


64  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

signifies  the  content  or  the  teaching  of  the  three 
other  gospels  with  which  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
agrees.  In  Adv.  Marc,  IV.  2,  it  is  said  that  Paul, 
when  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  consult  the 
apostles  about  his  gospel  "  that  he  might  not  run 
in  vain,"  agreed  with  them  touching  the  regula 
fidei,  where  the  word  evidently  refers,  not  to  any 
definite  creed  or  symbol,  but  to  the  gospel  preached 
by  both  them  and  him.  The  point  of  the  whole 
passage  is  that  Tertullian  finds  the  legitimation 
of  Paul's  gospel  in  the  approval  given  to  it  by  the 
older  apostles,  and  so  demands  that  the  Gospel  of 
Luke,  which  was  written  by  a  disciple  of  Paul,  shall 
be  legitimatized  by  its  agreement  with  the  other 
gospels.  In  Adv.  Marc,  III.  17,  occurs  the  phrase 
regula  scripturarum,  which  refers  not  to  a  creed  but 
to  the  principle  of  scripture  interpretation.  In 
Apol.,  46,  the  phrase  regula  disciplince  is  used  of  the 
Christian  law  of  morality  or  conduct. 

3.  The  meaning  of  the  word  regula  is  doubtful 
in  the  following  passages :  De  Praescriptione 
Haereticorum,  3,  where  falling  away  from  the  regula 
is  spoken  of,  and  where  it  is  uncertain  whether  the 
orthodox  creed  is  meant  or  the  Christian  faith  or 
religion  in  a  more  general  sense  ;  De  Praescriptione, 
42,  where  heretics  are  accused  of  departing  from 
their  own  regidae,  which  may  or  may  not  be 
formal  statements  of  belief ;  De  Praescriptione, 
44,  where  Christ  is  represented  as  saying  "  semel 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  65 

evangelium  et  ejusdem  regulae  doctrinam  apostolis 
meis  delegaveram;  libuit  mihi  postea  aliqua  inde 
mutare,"  and  where  it  is  doubtful  whether  ejusdem 
regulae  means  a  creed  or  the  general  law  of 
faith  and  conduct  given  by  Christ.  Again  in  Adv. 
Marc,  I.  21,  and  III.  1,  it  is  uncertain  whether 
Tertullian  refers  to  a  definite  symbol,  or  simply 
to  the  unformulated  belief  of  the  church. 

In  the  light  of  all  these  passages  it  is  clear  that 
the  occurrence  of  the  word  regula  in  Adv.  Marc, 
I.  20,  does  not  of  itself  prove  that  Tertullian  is 
there  referring  to  R  or  to  any  other  definite  creed. 
And  an  examination  of  the  context  makes  it  evi- 
dent that  he  is  thinking  not  of  a  creed  but  rather 
of  the  canon  of  scripture.  In  the  passage  imme- 
diately preceding  he  speaks  of  Marcion's  separation 
of  law  and  gospel  which  is  set  forth  in  his  An- 
titheses, where  the  contradictions  between  the  old 
and  the  new  instrumenti  are  exhibited.  And  he 
then  goes  on,  after  using  the  words  quoted  above 
("Aiunt  enim  Marcionem  non  tam  innovasse 
regulam  separatione  legis  et  evangelii  quam  retro 
adulteratam  recurasse"),  to  speak  of  the  contro- 
versy between  Peter  and  Paul  touching  circum- 
cision and  the  observance  of  the  law,  and  to  show 
that  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law 
and  the  substitution  of  a  new  spiritual  covenant 
had  been  prophesied  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
the  entire  section  there  is  no  hint  of  a  creed  or 

5 


66  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

symbol  of  any  kind,  and  to  interpret  regula  as 
referring  to  such  a  creed  or  symbol  is  to  do 
violence  to  the  context. 

Finally  Kattenbusch,  following  Zahn,  appeals 
to  De  Came  Christi,  2,  in  proof  of  his  claim  that 
Marcion  knew  and  accepted  R.  The  passage,  a 
part  of  which  was  quoted  above  in  connection  with 
the  discussion  of  Marcion's  letter,  runs  as  follows  : 
"His,  opinor,  consiliis  tot  originalia  instrumenta 
Christi  delere,  Marcion,  ausus  es,  ne  caro  ejus  pro- 
baretur.  Ex  quo,  oro  te  ?  Exhibe  auctoritatem. 
Si  propheta  es,  praenuntia  aliquid  :  si  apostolus, 
praedica  publice  :  si  apostolicus,  cum  apostolis 
senti  :  si  tantum  christianus  es,  crede  quod 
traditum  est :  si  nihil  istorum  es,  merito  dix- 
erim,  morere.  Nam  et  mortuus  es,  qui  non  es 
christianus,  non  credendo  quod  creditum  chris- 
tianos  facit,  et  eo  magis  mortuus  es  quo  magis 
non  es  christianus,  qui  cum  fuisses,  excidisti,  res- 
cindendo  quod  retro  credidisti,  sicut  et  ipse  con- 
fiteris  in  quadam  epistula  et  tui  non  negant  et 
nostri  probant.  Igitur  rescindens  quod  credidisti 
jam  non  credens  rescidisti,  non  tamen  quia  credere 
desisti,  recte  rescidisti,  atquin  rescindendo  quod 
credidisti  probas  ante  quam  rescinderes  aliter 
fuisse.  Quod  credidisti  aliter,  illud  ita  erat  tradi- 
tum. Porro  quod  traditum  erat,  id  erat  verum,  ut 
ab  eis  traditum  quorum  fuit  tradere.  Ergo  quod 
erat  traditum  rescindens  quod  erat  verum  rescid- 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  67 

isti.  Nullo  jure  fecisti.  Sed  plenius  ejusmodi 
praescriptionibus  ad  versus  omnes  haereses  alibi  jam 
usi  suinus.  Post  quas  nunc  ex  abundanti  retrac- 
tamus,  desiderantes  rationem  qua  non  putaveris 
natura  esse  Christum. "  When  the  passage  is  read 
in  its  entirety  and  in  connection  with  the  context 
it  is  perfectly  clear  that  Tertullian  is  referring  not 
to  Marcion's  rejection  of  a  creed  or  symbol  which 
he  had  once  accepted,  but  to  his  blotting  out  of  the 
record  of  Christ's  birth  contained  in  the  gospels. 
The  whole  discussion  concerns  the  reality  of  Christ's 
nativity,  and  Tertullian  goes  over  the  events  attend- 
ing Christ's  birth  and  infancy  as  recounted  in  the 
gospels  —  the  annunciation,  the  conception,  the 
imperial  taxing,  the  crowded  inn,  the  stable, 
the  swaddling  clothes,  the  song  of  the  angels,  the 
shepherds,  the  wise  men,  the  circumcision,  the  pre- 
sentation in  the  temple  —  and  then  asks  Marcion 
by  what  authority  he  has  blotted  out  the  record 
of  all  these  things  (originalia  instrumenta  Christi 
delere)} 

1  One  needs  only  to  read  the  whole  chapter  to  see  how  wide  of  the 
mark  is  the  following  note  of  Zahn  (Das  apostolische  Symbolum, 
p.  31) :  "  Entscheidend  scheinen  mir  besonders  folgende  Ausdriicke 
zu  sein  (De  Came  Christi,  2)  :  Mortuus  es,  qui  non  es  Christianus, 
non  credendo  quod  creditum  (al.  traditum)  Christianos  facit.  — 
Quod  credidisti  aliter,  illud  ita  erat  traditum.  Unaufhorlich  wer- 
den  dort  die  Worte  credidisti  und  traditum  wiederholt."  If  the 
words  credidisti  and  traditum  stood  by  themselves  one  might  easily 
suppose  they  referred  to  a  creed  or  symbol,  but  such  a  reference  is 
seen  to  be  impossible  when  the  context  is  examined. 


68  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

Thus  all  the  passages  urged  by  Kattenbusch 
in  support  of  the  claim  that  Marcion  knew  and 
accepted  R,  when  carefully  examined,  are  seen  not 
to  bear  the  interpretation  which  he  puts  upon 
them.  There  is  no  evidence  in  them  nor  is  there 
evidence  anywhere  that  Marcion  knew  and  accepted 
R.  And  the  lack  of  such  evidence  makes  strongly 
against  the  supposition  that  he  did,  for  it  is  just 
the  kind  of  fact  which  we  should  have  expected 
Marcion's  opponents  to  make  good  use  of  in  their 
controversy  with  him. 

And  not  simply  is  there  no  evidence  that  Mar- 
cion knew  and  accepted  R,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  had  any  definite  creed  or  symbol.  We 
have  explicit  testimony  to  the  existence  of  his 
scripture  canon  and  of  his  Antitheses  but  of  no 
other  documents  handed  down  by  him  to  his 
followers,  and  certainly  had  there  been  any  such 
we  should  have  heard  of  them. 

Concerning  the  relation  of  Valentinus  and  other 
early  Gnostics  to  R  we  have  even  less  information 
than  for  Marcion.  The  statements  that  Valen- 
tinus originally  accepted  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church  (Tertullian,  De  Praescriptione  Haereticorum, 
30),  and  that  the  Valentinians  were  accustomed  to 
declare  that  they  held  the  same  faith  as  the  church 
at  large  (Irenseus,  III.  15:2;  Tertullian,  Adv.  VaL, 
1),  are  of  the  most  general  character  and  may  or 
may  not  point  to  the  acceptance  of  the  same  creed. 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  69 

That  the  Valentinians  had  creeds  or  symbols  of 
their  own  is  quite  possible  (cf .  Tertullian,  Adv.  Val., 
4  ;  De  Praescriptione,  42,  44,  which  may  or  may  not 
refer  to  definite  creeds  or  symbols),  but  of  their 
relation  to  R  we  know  nothing.  It  is  possible 
that  Apelles,  the  famous  Marcionite,  had  a  creed 
framed  after  the  pattern  of  R,  as  maintained  by 
Harnack  (see  his  De  Apellis  Gnosi  Monarchica,  p. 
31  seq.,  and  Hahn,  p.  377),  but  he  was  a  contem- 
porary of  Irenseus  and  his  testimony  does  not 
carry  us  back  beyond  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century. 

Let  us  turn  next  to  Justin  Martyr  and  the  other 
apologists  of  the  day. 

Justin  nowhere  in  his  extant  works  testifies  to 
the  existence  of  any  creed  or  symbol ;  but  his  writ- 
ings contain  many  stereotyped  phrases  and  colloca- 
tions of  words  which  suggest  at  first  sight  an 
acquaintance  with  R  or  with  some  symbol  more  or 
less  closely  akin  to  it. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  evidence  which 
is  given  in  detail  by  Bornemann  in  an  elaborate 
article  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  KirchengeschicMe,  1879, 
p.  1-27,  and  also  by  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  286,  293 
seq.  I  may  simply  call  attention  to  some  of  the 
most  important  points. 

The  first  article  of  R  —  Oeov  narepa  TravTOKparopa 
—  is  not  found  in  Justin,  but  the  word  navroKpaTcop 
occurs  six  times  (Dial,  16,  38,  83,  96,  139,  142), 


70  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

five  times  with  0eds,  and  once  (Dial.  139)  with 
iraTTjp.  The  phrase  debs  navTOKpaTcop  is  common 
in  the  LXX  and  in  the  Johannine  Apocalypse,  but 
TTCLTrjp  iravTOKparcop  occurs  nowhere  before  Justin. 
God  is  commonly  called  by  Justin  "  Father  of  the 
universe,"  "  God  and  Father  of  the  Universe  "  or 
"of  all,"  "Father  and  Maker  of  all  things," 
"Maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth,"  "Father  of 
Christ,"  etc. 

The  particulars  of  the  third  section  of  R  (Holy 
Spirit,  Holy  Church,  Forgiveness  of  sins,  Resurrec- 
tion of  flesh)  are  nowhere  associated  by  Justin. 
He  speaks  often  of  the  Spirit,  commonly  as  "  the 
prophetic  Spirit,"  or  "  Holy  Spirit  of  Prophecy," 
never  as  nvevfjia  ayiov  without  article  or  qualifying 
phrase  as  in  R.  He  also  refers  twice  to  the  church 
(Dial.  63,  134),  a  few  times  to  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  (ac^ecns  d/xapriw^),  and  still  oftener  to  the 
resurrection,  commonly  as  a  resurrection  of 
bodies,  only  once  as  a  resurrection  of  flesh  (aapKos 
avdcrTacns,  Dial.,  80).  There  is  no  sign  in  any  of 
these  cases  of  the  influence  of  R,  or  of  any  other 
symbol. 

In  speaking  of  Christ,  Justin  refers  over  and 
over  again  to  the  virgin  birth  (Bid  irapdevov),  but 
does  not  mention  the  Spirit  in  connection  with  it. 
Christ's  teaching  and  wonderful  works,  his  cruci- 
fixion, suffering,  death,  burial,  resurrection,  ascen- 
sion, session,  and  second  coming  are  also  spoken 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  71 

of,  some  of  them  more,  some  less  frequently. 
There  are  about  a  dozen  passages  in  which 
various  events  in  Christ's  career  are  mentioned 
together,  more  or  less  after  the  fashion  of  R. 
Thus  the  birth,  works,  crucifixion,  death,  resur- 
rection, ascension  (ApoL,  I.  31) ;  virgin  birth, 
crucifixion,  death,  resurrection,  ascension  (ApoL, 
I.  46)  ;  incarnation  through  the  Virgin,  suffer- 
ing, crucifixion,  death,  resurrection,  ascension 
(Dial.,  89) ;  birth,  death,  resurrection  (ApoL,  I.  63) ; 
birth,  suffering,  ascension  (Dial.,  126) ;  birth, 
crucifixion  (ApoL,  I.  13);  crucifixion,  death,  resur- 
rection, ascension  (ApoL,  I.  21,  42) ;  crucifixion, 
death,  resurrection  (Dial.,  65);  crucifixion,  resur- 
rection, ascension  (ApoL,  I.  50) ;  crucifixion, 
resurrection,  ascension,  judgment  (Dial.,  132) ; 
crucifixion,  suffering,  lordship  (Dial.,  76 ) ;  burial, 
resurrection,  judgment  (Dial.,  118). 

There  is  no  verbal  agreement  between  these 
various  passages  or  between  any  of  them  and  R, 
and  they  are  in  no  case  associated  with  references 
to  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  so  as  to  suggest  that 
they  are  a  part  of  a  creed  as  in  R.  The  most  one 
can  say  is  that  Justin  has  in  mind  certain  events 
in  connection  with  Christ,  at  least  some  of  which 
he  mentions  frequently  and  in  more  or  less  stereo- 
typed form.  But  such  stereotyping  as  we  find 
may  easily  have  preceded  the  formation  of  R. 
The   events   mentioned    by   Justin    are    just   the 


72  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

ones  which  he  might  have  been  expected  to 
emphasize,  whether  or  not  they  had  been  pre- 
viously connected  in  a  formula;  and  the  use  of 
prophecy  would  naturally  lead  to  the  collocation 
of  such  events  in  order  to  make  the  appeal  to 
prophecy  more  telling. 

But  the  repeated  use  of  the  phrase  "  Crucified 
under  Pontius  Pilate' '  demands  still  further 
explanation.  The  phrase  is  a  standing  one  with 
Justin  and  is  used  over  and  over  again  when  there 
is  no  reason  in  the  context  for  its  introduction, 
and  when  it  can  be  explained  only  as  a  familiar 
and  stereotyped  phrase  which  suggested  itself 
naturally  at  the  mention  of  Christ's  name.  Thus, 
for  instance,  in  connection  with  the  formula  of 
baptism  in  Apol,  I.  61,  Justin  says :  "  Into  the 
name  of  the  father  of  the  universe  and  Lord  God, 
and  of  Jesus  Christ  who  was  crucified  under 
Pontius  Pilate,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
through  the  prophets  foretold  all  things  concern- 
ing Jesus." 

The  crucifixion  is  referred  to  seventy-six  times  in 
Justin's  writings  and  in  the  majority  of  cases  in 
connection  with  the  exorcism  of  demons.  Thus,  for 
instance,  in  Apol,  II.  6,  it  is  said  :  "  For  many  of  our 
people  —  that  is  the  Christians  —  have  healed  and 
are  now  healing  numberless  demoniacs  throughout 
the  world  and  in  your  own  city,  exorcising  them 
in  the  name  of   Jesus  Christ,  who   was  crucified 


DATE   OF  THE  OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  73 

under  Pontius  Pilate,  overcoming  and  driving  out 
the  devils  who  possessed  them  though  they  could 
not  be  cured  by  all  the  other  exorcists  and  users 
of  drugs  and  incantations ; "  and  again  in  Dial., 
30 :  "  For  we  call  him  helper  and  redeemer,  the 
power  of  whose  name  even  the  demons  tremble  at; 
and  to-day  when  they  are  exorcised  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  crucified  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  Governor  of  Judea,  they  obey/'  (Cf.  also 
Dial,  49,  85 ) .  These  and  other  similar  passages 
suggest  that  the  words  "Jesus  Christ,  who  was 
crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate"  constituted  a  regu- 
lar formula  of  exorcism  which  was  so  familiar  to 
Justin  that  it  naturally  came  into  his  mind  when- 
ever he  mentioned  Christ's  name.  And  so  in  Apol., 
I.  61,  in  defining  more  particularly  the  three 
persons  into  whose  names  the  convert  was  bap- 
tized, he  naturally  used  the  stereotyped  phrase 
"  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate "  in  speaking  of 
Christ,  as  he  used  familiar  and  current  phrases  in 
speaking  of  God  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  the  article  mentioned  above  Bornemann  main- 
tains that  Justin  had  a  creed  similar  to,  though  not 
identical  with  R,  and  he  attempts  to  reconstruct  it 
in  detail  upon  the  basis  of  Justin's  use  of  stereo- 
typed phrases  such  as  have  been  referred  to.  But 
the  evidence  is  utterly  inadequate  to  establish 
Bornemann's  conclusion.  If  Justin  testified  dis- 
tinctly to  the  existence  of  a  creed  in  his  day,  or  if 


74  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

we  knew  on  other  grounds  that  a  creed  was  in 
general  use  or  in  use  at  Kome  when  he  was  writing 
we  might  perhaps  see  in  some  passages  quotations 
from  or  echoes  of  such  a  creed,  but  taken  by  them- 
selves they  prove  nothing  beyond  the  natural  and 
common  tendency  to  emphasize  certain  events  in 
Christ's  life,  or  to  use  certain  more  or  less  stereo- 
typed phrases  in  speaking  of  Christian  facts  and 
truths.  Kattenbusch  recognizes  the  error  in  Borne- 
mann's  method  and  rejects  altogether  his  recon- 
struction of  Justin's  creed.  But  he  maintains  that 
Justin  knew  R,  and  he  finds  many  reminiscences 
of  it  in  his  writings.  At  the  same  time  he  admits 
if  we  were  not  already  acquainted  with  R  we  could 
not  attribute  to  Justin  a  knowledge  of  any  symbol, 
and  if  we  did  not  know  that  R  was  in  use  in  Rome 
in  Justin's  time  we  could  not  gather  sufficient  evi- 
dence from  his  writings  to  prove  it.  It  is  only 
because  we  know  that  R  was  in  use  in  Rome  when 
Marcion  came  thither  that  we  are  justified,  accord- 
ing to  Kattenbusch,  in  finding  echoes  of  it  in  Jus- 
tin's writings.  But  we  have  already  seen  that 
there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  that  Marcion  knew 
or  used  R,  and  so  the  presumption  with  which 
Kattenbusch  comes  to  the  study  of  Justin  does  not 
exist  for  us ;  and  that  being  the  case  we  must 
recognize  that  there  is  no  ground  for  the  assertion 
that  Justin  knew  and  used  R  or  any  other  creed 
or  symbol. 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  75 

But  it  seems  to  me  we  may  go  further  than  this 
and  say  that  there  is  on  the  contrary  good  evidence 
that  he  did  not  know  R  or  any  similar  symbol.  In 
ApoZ.,  I.  61,  65-67,  he  gives  an  elaborate  account 
of  Christian  worship,  including  a  detailed  descrip- 
tion of  the  rite  of  baptism.  He  opens  his  account 
with  the  words  :  "  I  will  also  relate  the  manner  in 
which  we  dedicated  ourselves  to  God  when  we  had 
been  made  new  through  Christ;  lest  if  we  omit 
this  we  seem  to  do  wrong  in  the  explanation  we 
are  making."  (Compare  chapter  3,  where  he  says  : 
"  Every  sober-minded  person  will  declare  that  this 
is  a  fair  and  just  demand,  that  those  accused  ren- 
der an  unexceptional  account  of  their  own  life  and 
doctrine  ;  "  and  a  little  farther  on  "  It  is  our  busi- 
ness, therefore,  to  afford  to  all  an  opportunity  of 
inspecting  our  life  and  teachings.")  And  he  then 
continues  :  "  As  many  as  are  persuaded  and  believe 
that  what  we  teach  and  say  is  true,  and  under- 
take to  be  able  to  live  accordingly,  are  instructed 
to  pray  and  to  ask  from  God,  with  fasting,  the 
remission  of  their  past  sins,  we  praying  and  fasting 
with  them.  Then  they  are  brought  by  us  where 
there  is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in  the  same 
manner  in  which  we  were  ourselves  regenerated. 
For  in  the  name  of  the  Father  of  the  universe  and 
Lord  God,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  then  receive  the  washing 
with  water." 


76  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

There  is  no  mention  of  a  creed  or  symbol  any- 
where in  the  passage.  It  might  be  thought  that  a 
creed  is  referred  to  in  the  words,  "  As  many  as  are 
persuaded  and  believe  that  what  we  teach  and  say 
is  true,"  but  the  reference  may  be  simply  to 
Christian  faith  in  general,  and  that  it  cannot  refer 
specifically  to  R  or  to  any  similar  symbol  is  proved 
by  what  follows :  "  and  undertake  to  be  able  to 
live  accordingly."  Evidently  ethical  instruction 
is  chiefly  in  mind  and  we  are  reminded  at  once  of 
the  Didache  with  its  prebaptismal  moral  instruc- 
tion. The  omission  of  all  reference  to  a  creed  in 
Justin's  description  of  Christian  baptism  seems  to 
me  to  prove  conclusively  that  no  such  creed  as  R 
was  current  in  Rome  at  the  time  he  wrote,  for 
R  is  evidently  based  upon  the  baptismal  formula, 
and  was  from  the  beginning  without  question  a 
baptismal  symbol. 

On  Justin's  relation  to  R  see  also  Harnack 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  1894, 
p.  147  seq. 

The  other  Greek  Apologists  of  the  second  cen- 
tury make  no  reference  to  R  and  none  of  them, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  Aristides  of  Athens 
and  Melito  of  Sardis,  contains  any  trace  of  a 
knowledge  of  R  or  of  any  other  creed.  So  far  as 
Aristides  is  concerned,  Kattenbusch  (II.  p.  303  seq.) 
thinks  that  there  may  possibly  be  a  reminiscence 
of  R  in  the  following  passage  :   iv  Trvevpari  ayico 


DATE   OF   THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  77 

an  ovpavov  /Caracas  Sta  tt)v  croyriqpiav  tcov  av- 
6p(i)TTo>v.  Kal  Ik  irapOevov  dry  Las  ytvvrjOels,  acnropcos 
re  Kal  d(f)06po)S,  crdpKa  av4\af$e,  Kal  dve<j)dvr) 
dvOpconois  .  .  .  Kal  reXecra?  ttjv  OavfxacrTrjv  avrov 
oiKovoixiav,  Sid  (Travpov  Oavdrov  iyevaaro  .  .  .  fiera 
Se  rpeis  rj/jLepas  dvefiico  Kal  els  ovpavovs  dvrjXdev 
(Apol,  2). 

But  even  granting  that  the  above  represents  the 
original  text,  which  is  not  certain,  the  most  that 
can  be  said  is  that  if  it  could  be  shown  on  other 
grounds  that  Aristides  knew  R  it  might  be  thought 
that  he  had  R  in  mind  while  he  was  speaking  of 
virgin  birth,  crucifixion,  resurrection,  and  ascen- 
sion ;  but  as  there  is  no  other  evidence  of  his 
acquaintance  with  R  or  with  any  other  symbol, 
the  passage  quoted  is  far  too  general  in  character 
to  prove  anything.  There  is  nothing  in  the  pass- 
age which  may  not  be  easily  explained  as  a  free 
composition  of  Aristides,  writing  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  common  Gospel  tradition. 

In  the  case  of  Melito  of  Sardis,  a  contemporary 
of  Irenaeus,  the  evidence  of  an  acquaintance  with 
R  is  more  marked.  Melito  nowhere  refers  to  R  or 
to  any  other  creed,  but  in  one  of  the  Syriac  frag- 
ments of  his  writings,  the  authenticity  of  which 
is  not  altogether  certain,  occurs  the  following 
passage  :  "  Ipse  qui  in  virgine  corporatus  est,  ipse 
qui  in  ligno  suspensus  est,  ipse  qui  in  terra  sepul- 
tus  est,  ipse  qui  e  mortuis  surrexit  et  ascendit  ad 


78  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

altitudinem  coeli  et  sedet  ad  dexteram  patris."  * 
Assuming  that  this  passage  is  really  authentic,  the 
identity  of  the  series  of  events  with  the  series  in 
R  (birth,  crucifixion,  burial,  resurrection,  ascen- 
sion, and  session)  is  very  striking,  and  especially 
the  phrase  ad  dexteram  patris,  which  is  found 
nowhere  else  in  second  century  literature  except 
in  R,  in  Irenaeus,  and  in  Tertullian  (see  p.  97). 
It  certainly  looks  as  if  Melito  were  acquainted 
with  R,  and,  as  he  was  a  contemporary  of  Irenaeus 
and  the  intercourse  between  Asia  Minor  and  the 
west  was  very  active,  it  is  quite  possible  that  he 
was.  But  in  the  absence  of  collateral  testimony 
to  the  use  of  R  in  the  east  at  this  time,  and  in 
view  of  the  uncertainty  touching  the  authenticity 
of  the  fragment  in  question,  and  in  view  also 
of  the  fact  that  the  Syriac  manuscript  containing 
the  fragment  dates  from  the  sixth  century,  when 
the  Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan  creed  with  the 
same  series  of  events  (except  for  the  addition  of 
TraOovra)  and  with  the  phrase  Ik  Setjucov  rov  Trar/ods, 
was  current  in  the  east,  it  will  not  do  to  speak 
with  any  positiveness. 

Upon  Melito' s  relation  to  R  see  Kattenbusch, 
II.  p.  229  seq. 

There  is  no  hint  of  a  knowledge  of  R  or  of 
any  other  creed  in  First  and  Second  Clement  and 
The  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  all  of  which  were  writ- 

1  Otto:   Corpus  Apologetarum  Christianorum,  vol.  ix.,  p.  423. 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  79 

ten  in  Rome,  and  the  last  two  probably  not  far 
from  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The 
silence  of  these  three  witnesses,  especially  of  the 
last  two,  goes  to  confirm  the  conclusion  already 
reached  that  R  was  not  in  use  in  Rome  before  the 
middle  of  that  century.  Kattenbusch  admits  that 
these  writers  contain  no  testimony  to  the  exist- 
ence of  R,  but  he  nevertheless  pushes  its  origin 
back  to  about  100  (i.  e.,  to  a  time  shortly  after  the 
composition  of  1  Clement),  treating  the  silence  of 
Hermas  and  2  Clement  as  of  no  significance.  But 
such  a  course  is  possible  only  to  one  who  main- 
tains, as  Kattenbusch  does,  that  we  have  positive 
testimony  that  R  was  in  use  in  Rome  when  Mar- 
cion  came  thither.  When  one  recognizes  that  we 
have  no  testimony  to  that  effect,  and  that  Justin 
Martyr's  writings  make  against  rather  than  for 
the  existence  of  R  in  Rome  in  his  day,  the  silence 
of  Hermas  and  2  Clement  is  full  of  meaning. 

What  is  true  of  Hermas  and  the  two  Clements 
is  true  also  of  all  the  other  apostolic  fathers. 
Not  one  of  them  shows  any  trace  of  a  knowledge  of 
any  kind  of  a  symbol  or  creed.  The  silence  of  the 
Didache  is  especially  significant,  for  it  contains  an 
elaborate  account  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  includ- 
ing the  pre-baptismal  instruction  to  be  given  to 
the  candidate,  and  if  that  instruction  embraced 
R  or  any  other  creed  the  writer  could  not  have 
failed   to   mention   it.     As  it  is,  the  instruction 


80  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

given  is  wholly  moral  and  practical  (cf.  Did., 
I-VI).  This  may  be  regarded  as  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  no  symbol  or  creed  was  in  use  at  the 
time  when  the  Didache  was  written  (probably  the 
early  part  of  the  second  century),  at  any  rate  in 
that  part  of  the  church  to  which  it  belongs,  that 
is,  in   Syria  or  Palestine. 

A  few  words  should  be  said  about  Ignatius,  for 
his  epistles  contain  some  passages  which  have 
been  thought  by  many  scholars  (Caspari,  Zahn,  and 
others)  to  indicate  his  acquaintance  with  R  or 
with  some  similar  symbol  (cf.  especially  Zahn, 
Ignatius  von  Antiochien,  p.  590  seq.).  Ignatius  no- 
where refers  to  a  symbol  or  creed.  It  is  true  that 
he  sometimes  uses  the  word  ttlo-tls  in  an  objective 
sense  (e.  g.,  in  Eph.  16  and  20),  but  there  is  no 
sign  that  he  had  anything  more  definite  in  mind 
than  the  faith  of  the  church,  or  the  true  belief  con- 
cerning Christ,  quite  irrespective  of  its  formulation 
in  a  creed.  In  Magn.,  13,  he  exhorts  his  readers 
to  be  "  confirmed  in  the  ordinances  (Soy/xara)  of 
the  Lord  and  of  the  Apostles,"  but  the  context 
shows  that  he  refers  to  practical  ordinances, 
which  have  to  do  with  conduct,  not  with  faith  ; 
and  the  same  practical  interest  leads  him  to  exhort 
the  Magnesians,  in  chap.  11,  to  be  "  fully  per- 
suaded concerning  the  birth,  and  the  passion,  and 
the  resurrection,  which  took  place  in  the  time  of 
the  governorship  of  Pontius  Pilate." 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  81 

The  only  passages  that  furnish  any  possible 
support  to  the  claim  that  Ignatius  had  a  creed 
are  two  containing  more  or  less  stereotyped 
accounts  of  the  career  of  Christ  or  references  to 
certain  events  in  that  career  which  suggest  such  a 
formulation  as  we  have  in  the  second  article  of  R. 
Thus  in  Trail.,  9  :  "Be  ye  deaf  therefore  when  any 
man  speaketh  to  you  apart  from  Jesus  Christ, 
who  was  of  the  race  of  David,  who  was  son  of 
Mary  (rot)  e/c  Ma/n'a?),  who  was  truly  born  (dA^cD? 
iyevvijOr)),  and  ate  and  drank,  was  truly  persecu- 
ted under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  truly  crucified  and 
died  (akrjOcos  icrravpcjOr)  kolI  dweOavev)  in  the  sight 
of  those  in  heaven  and  on  earth  and  under  the 
earth,  who  also  was  truly  raised  from  the  dead 
(d\77#cu5  -qyepOrj  dnb  veKpwv),  his  Father  having 
raised  him,  who  in  like  manner  will  so  raise  us 
also  who  believe  in  him  —  his  Father  will  raise  us 
in  Christ  Jesus,  apart  from  whom  we  have  not  true 
life";  Smyrn.,  1:  "For  I  have  perceived  that  ye 
are  established  in  faith  immovable,  .  .  .  being 
fully  persuaded  concerning  our  Lord,  that  he  is 
truly  of  the  seed  of  David  in  flesh,  son  of  God  in 
will  and  power,  truly  born  of  a  virgin  {yeyewq^i- 
vov  a\r)6u)<;  Ik  irapOevov),  baptized  by  John  that 
all  righteousness  might  be  fulfilled  by  him,  truly 
nailed  up  in  flesh  for  our  sakes  under  Pontius 
Pilate  and  Herod  the  Tetrarch  (of  which  fruit  are 
we  ;  that  is  of  his  most  blessed  passion)  ;  that  he 


mf* 


u*'£x; 


82  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

might  set  up  an  ensign  unto  all  the  ages  through 
the  resurrection,  for  his  saints  and  faithful  people, 
whether  among  Jews  or  Gentiles,  in  one  body  of 
his  church.' ' 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  both  these  passages 
Ignatius  is  opposing  docetists  who  deny  the 
reality  of  Christ's  earthly  body,  and  so  he  is  in- 
terested to  emphasize  its  reality  in  the  strongest 
possible  way.  This  consideration  fully  accounts 
for  the  mention  of  Jesus'  Davidic  lineage,  his  birth, 
his  baptism,  his  eating  and  drinking,  his  passion, 
crucifixion,  death,  and  resurrection,  and  no  formu- 
lated creed  is  needed  to  explain  such  mention.  So 
far  as  the  phraseology  goes  it  varies  greatly  in  the 
two  cases  and  the  slight  stereotyping  of  ex- 
pression at  some  points,  in  these  and  other  pas- 
sages, is  no  more  than  one  might  expect  in  a 
writer  who  felt  it  necessary  to  insist  so  strenuously 
and  continually  upon  the  reality  of  Christ's  life 
over  against  docetism. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  again  that  the  more  or  less 
formulated  references  to  the  career  of  Christ  which 
have  been  mentioned  are  not  connected  by  Ignatius 
with  articles  concerning  God  or  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
in  other  words  they  do  not  appear  as  part  of  a 
three-membered  symbol,  as  is  the  case  in  R,  and 
so  their  connection  with  a  creed  is  rendered  still 
more  improbable. 

Finally  the  failure  of  Ignatius  to  refer  explicitly 


DATE   OF  THE   OLD  ROMAN  SYMBOL  83 

to  a  creed  in  his  conflict  with  the  docetists,  and 
especially  in  Phil.  8,  where  his  opponents  refuse  to 
accept  his  account  of  Christ  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  not  found  in  the  Archives  (ap^e'iois)  or  Old 
Testament,  seems  to  me  conclusive  evidence  that 
he  had  no  creed  or  symbol.  For  a  fuller  discus- 
sion of  Ignatius  see  Harnack  in  the  Expositor ', 
Dec.  1885,  Jan.  and  March  1886,  and  Kattenbusch, 
II.  p.  310  seq.,  both  of  whom  deny  that  Ignatius 
had  a  creed. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  any  further  back  in  our 
examination  of  early  christian  literature.  There 
is  not  even  the  remotest  trace  of  R  or  of  any  other 
formulated  creed  in  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament.  So  far,  then,  as  the  testimony  of  the 
extant  documents  goes,  R  must  have  originated  in 
the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century,  in  the 
interval  between  the  literary  activity  of  Justin 
Martyr  and  that  of  Irenaeus.  We  shall  see  later 
whether  the  internal  evidence  to  be  drawn  from 
R  itself  confirms  or  contradicts  this  conclusion. 


84  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

III. 

The  Original  Text  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol. 

It  is  maintained  by  Harnack  and  Kattenbusch 
that  the  text  of  R,  as  we  find  it  testified  to  by 
Rufinus  in  the  fourth  century,  is  the  original  text. 
The  reasons  for  their  opinion  do  not  clearly 
appear.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  neither  of  them  seems 
to  have  made  earnest  with  the  question  whether 
the  fourth  century  text  of  R  may  not  be  an  en- 
largement of  the  earliest  form,  except  in  so  far  as 
relates  to  the  first  article,  where  they  discuss  care- 
fully Zahn's  contention  that  it  read  originally 
TTicrreuoi  eis  eva  ®ebv  TravTOKpdropa.  The  fact  that 
Rufinus  says  that  the  church  of  Rome  had  pre- 
served its  symbol  from  the  beginning  unchanged 
(Expositio  Symbolic  chap.  3)  of  course  proves 
nothing,  for  Rufinus'  testimony  is  of  weight  at 
most  for  only  a  generation  or  two.  The  fact, 
moreover,  that  the  theological  discussions  of  the 
third  century  did  not  result  in  a  complete  trans- 
formation of  the  symbol,  or  in  large  additions  to 
it,  as  happened  for  instance  in  the  east  where  the 
Logos  christology  found  its  way  into  the  text,  does 
not  prove  that  no  additions  were  made  at  any  time 
and  under  any  circumstances.  There  is  indeed  no 
a  priori  reason  why  the  fourth  century  text  of  R 


THE   ORIGINAL    TEXT  85 

may  not  be  an  enlargement  of  the  original  form. 
The  only  way  to  determine  whether  it  is  or  not  is 
to  examine  the  testimony  of  the  earliest  witnesses 
to  the  creed,  that  is  especially  of  Irenaeus  and 
Tertullian. 

In  trying  to  discover  the  text  of  R  as  known  to 
them  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  both  of  them 
are  very  free  in  their  treatment  of  the  creed,  and 
that  their  testimony  to  its  text  is  therefore  to  be 
used  with  caution.  Tertullian  follows  the  letter 
of  the  creed  more  closely  than  Irenaeus,  and 
declares  that  the  regula  fidei  is  una  omnino,  sola 
immobilis  et  irreformabilis,  but  even  he  reproduces  it 
in  different  forms  at  different  times,  showing  that 
it  is  its  substance,  not  its  form,  with  which  he  is 
chiefly  concerned. 

The  principal  passages  upon  which  we  have  to 
base  a  reconstruction  of  the  text  of  the  creed  as 
known  to  Tertullian  are  De  Virginibus  Velandis,  1, 
the  most  compact  and  apparently  the  most  exact 
statement  of  it ;  Adv.  Praxeam,  2,  and  De  Prae- 
scriptione  Haereticorum,  13,  which  are  more  elabo- 
rate, and  De  Praescriptione  Haeretico?mm,  36,  which 
is  only  fragmentary.  These  passages  run  as  fol- 
lows :  De  Virg.  Vel.  1 :  "  Regula  quidem  fidei  una 
omnino  est,  sola  immobilis  et  irreformabilis,  cre- 
dendi  scilicet  in  unicum  Deum  omnipotentem, 
mundi  conditorem,  et  filium  ejus  Jesum  Christum, 
natum  ex  virgine  Maria,  crucifixum  sub  Pontio 


86  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

Pilato,  tertia  die  resuscitatum  a  mortuis,  receptum 
in  coelis,  sedentem  nunc  ad  dexteram  patris,  ven- 
turum  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos  per  carnis  etiam 
resurrectionem."  Adv.  Prax.,  2  :  "  Nos  vero  et  sem- 
per et  nunc  magis,  ut  instructiores  per  paracletum, 
deductorem  scilicet  omnis  veritatis,  unicum  quidem 
Deum  credimus,  sub  hac  tamen  dispensatione  quam 
olKovofxiav  dicimus,  ut  unici  Dei  sit  et  filius  sermo 
ipsius,  qui  ex  ipso  processerit,  per  quera  omnia 
facta  sunt,  et  sine  quo  factum  est  nihil.  Hunc 
missum  a  patre  in  virginem  et  ex  ea  natum, 
hominem  et  Deum,  filium  hominis  et  filium  Dei, 
et  cognominatum  Jesum  Christum ;  hunc  passum, 
hunc  mortuum  et  sepultum,  secundum  scripturas, 
et  resuscitatum  a  patre,  et  in  coelo  resumptum 
sedere  ad  dexteram  patris,  venturum  judicare 
vivos  et  mortuos ;  qui  exinde  miserit,  secundum 
promissionem  suam,  a  patre  spiritum  sanctum 
paracletum,  sanctificatorem  fidei  eorum  qui  cre- 
dunt  in  patrem  et  filium  et  spiritum  sanctum."  De 
Praescriptione,  13  :  "Regula  est  autem  fidei,  ut  jam 
hinc  quid  defendamus  profiteamur,  ilia  scilicet  qua 
creditur  unum  omnino  Deum  esse  nee  aliurn  praeter 
mundi  conditorem,qui  universa  de  nihilo  produxerit 
per  verbum  suum  primo  omnium  demissum ; 
id  verbum  filium  ejus  appellatum,  in  nomine 
Dei  varie  visum  a  patriarchis,  in  prophetis  semper 
auditum,  postremo  delatum  ex  spiritu  patris  Dei  et 
virtute   in   virginem  Mariam,   carnem  factum  in 


THE   ORIGINAL    TEXT  87 

utero  ejus,  et  ex  ea  natum  exisse  Jesum  Christum ; 
exinde  predicasse  novam  legem  et  novam  promis- 
sionem  regni  coelorum,  virtutes  fecisse,  cruci  fixum 
tertia  die  resurrexisse,  in  coelos  ereptum  sedisse  ad 
dexteram  patris,  mississe  vicariam  vim  spiritus 
sancti  qui  credentes  agat,  venturum  cum  claritate 
ad  sumendos  sanctos  in  vitae  aeternae  et  promis- 
sorum  coelestium  fructum,  et  ad  profanos  judicandos 
igni  perpetuo,  facta  utriusque  partis  resuscitatione 
cum  carnis  restitutione." 

De  Praescriptione,  36  :  "  Si  autem  Italiaa  adjaces, 
habes  Romam,  unde  nobis  quoque  auctoritas  praesto 
est  .  .  .  Yideamus  quid  didicerit,  quid  docuerit, 
cum  Africanis  quoque  ecclesiis  contesserarit. 
Unum  Deum  dominum  novit,  creatorem  univer- 
sitatis,  et  Christum  Jesum  ex  virgine  Maria  filium 
dei  creatoris,  et  carnis  resurrectionem." 

Comparing  these  passages  with  the  tentative 
reconstruction  of  Irenaeus'  creed  given  on  p.  50  seq., 
we  find  in  the  first  place  that  Irenasus  and  Tertul- 
lian  agree  in  the  following  variations  from  the 
fourth  century  text  of  R. 

1.  They  both  have  iva  before  deov  in  article  1. 

This  may  have  stood  in  the  original  text  of  R, 
as  Zahn  maintains  over  against  Harnack  and 
Kattenbusch  (see  Zahn,  Das  apostolische  Symbolum, 
p.  22  seq.,  and  also  Burn,  An  Introduction  to  the 
Creeds,  p.  55  seq.),  and  the  following  passage  from 
Adv.  Prax.,  3,  seems  at  first  sight  conclusive  evi- 


88  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

dence  of  it :  "  The  simple  .  .  .  are  startled  at  the 
oLKovofjLLa,  on  the  ground  that  the  very  rule  of  faith 
withdraws  them  from  the  world's  many  gods  to 
the  one  only  and  true  God  (ad  unicum  et  verum 
deum)."  But  verum  is  not  in  Tertullian's  creed  in 
any  case  and  the  article  in  deumpatrem  omnipotentem 
might  be  sufficient  to  justify  the  position  of  the 
u  simple,"  for  it  implies  one  only  and  true  God. 
If  eva  did  not  stand  in  the  original  creed  it  would 
be  very  natural  for  Irenseus  to  insert  it  in  his  con- 
flict with  the  Gnostics,  whose  fundamental  error 
was  their  assumption  of  two  gods,  just  as  in  some 
passages  he  inserted  eva  before  Xpiarov  'Irjaovv; 
and  as  Tertullian  was  directly  under  Irengeus' 
influence,  and  was  combating  the  same  heretics, 
he  might  be  expected  to  follow  him  in  the  matter. 
It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Tertullian  has  unum  in  two 
of  the  passages  quoted  and  unicum  in  the  others, 
while  the  Latin  version  of  Irenaeus,  which  was 
familiar  to  Tertullian,  has  uniformly  unum.  This 
variation  suggests  that  the  word  may  not  have 
been  securely  fixed  in  the  creed.  It  is  to  be 
noticed  also  that  the  later  omission  of  iva  in  R 
and  in  all  the  North  African  and  Gallic  creeds  is 
very  difficult  to  explain  if  it  constituted  a  part  of 
the  creed  in  the  beginning.  Zahn  (followed  by 
Burn)  ascribes  the  omission  to  the  influence  of 
Patripassianism,  but  the  cure  in  that  case  would  be 
worse  than  the  disease,  for  the  deliberate  expung- 


THE   ORIGINAL    TEXT  89 

ing  of  the  word  would  seem  to  show  that  the 
church  did  not  believe  in  one  God  as  it  always 
insisted  that  it  did.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me 
altogether  probable  that  eva  was  not  in  the  origi- 
nal text  of  R,  but  represents,  like  creator,  etc.,  an 
addition  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 

2.  Both  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  have  phrases 
and  clauses  in  the  first  article  referring  to  God 
as  creator.  The  expressions  used  by  Irenaeus  are 
given  above  on  p.  50.  In  Tertullian  we  have 
"mundi  conditorem  "  (De  Virg.  Vel.,  1);  "  mundi 
conditorem,  qui  universa  de  nihilo  produxerit  per 
verbum  suum  "  (De  Praescriptione,  13) ;  "creatorem 
universitatis  "  (De  Praescriptione,  36).  The  words 
vary  widely  in  both  writers,  and  are  without  doubt 
additions  to  the  original  text  of  R,  made  by  them 
in  their  conflict  with  the  Gnostics. 

3.  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  both .  use  a  passive 
participle  (Irenaeus,  receptus  and  the  noun  avdXrjxjjis ; 
Tertullian,  receptus,  resimiptas,  ereplus)  in  referring 
to  the  ascension,  while  R  has  the  active  dvafiavTa 
(ascendit).  But  the  same  word  is  not  used  by 
Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  in  every  case,  and  as  in  the 
New  Testament  references  to  the  ascension  a  pas- 
sive verb  is  used  (avekrux^Qr),  Mark  XVI.  19,  Acts 
I.  2,  11,  22  ;  dvecfyepero,  Luke  XXIV.  51 ;  cinfc&y, 
Acts  I.  9)  it  seems  probable  that  R  had  the  active 
dvafiavra  which  Irenaeus,  followed  by  Tertullian, 
changed  to  the  passive  under  the  influence  of  the 


90  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

New  Testament.  The  point  is  of  small  import- 
ance, and  no  positive  conclusion  can  be  reached, 
but  it  is  easier  to  explain  this  change  than  the 
opposite. 

4.  In  both  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  fjLovoyeinjs  is 
wanting  in  the  second  article  ;  and  as  both  believe 
that  Christ  is  novoyevijs  (unigenitus),  and  use  the 
word  frequently  in  connection  with  him,  and  as 
there  is  no  apparent  reason  for  omitting  the  word 
in  their  reproductions  of  the  creed  if  it  actually 
constituted  a  part  of  the  symbol,  we  may  fairly 
conclude  that  it  was  not  in  the  creed  used  by  them 
and  so  not  in  the  original  text  of  R.  The  word  is 
also  omitted  in  some  western  recensions  of  R  (see 
Hahn,  §§  40,  48,  51,  53,  57,  61,  70),  but  the  omis- 
sion even  where  textually  certain,  as  it  is  not  in 
the  first  four  (cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  110,  138,  150, 
157),  has  little  significance  owing  to  the  composite 
origin  or  late  date  of  the  texts  in  question  (cf .  ibid., 
p.  399,  158,  181).  The  word  is  wanting  too  in 
the  creed  of  the  Syriac  Didascalia,  of  the  third 
century,  if  Zahn's  conjectural  reconstruction  of  it 
is  to  be  relied  upon  (see  his  Neuere  Beitrage  zur 
GeschicMe  des  apostolischen  Symbolums  in  the  Neue 
Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,  1896,  p.  22  seq.).  Zahn  also 
thinks  that  povoyevrjs  was  not  a  part  of  the  origi- 
nal text  of  R  and  suggests  (Das  apostolisehe  Syrribo- 
lum,  p.  45)  that  the  word  was  inserted  in  the  time 
of  Zephyrinus,  when  according  to  his  view  ha  was 


THE   ORIGINAL    TEXT  91 

omitted  from  the  first  article  and  irarepa   added 
to  it. 

5.  In  both  Tertullian  and  Irenseus  top  Kvpiov 
rjfxcov  is  wanting  in  the  second  article ;  and  though, 
as  was  remarked  on  p.  51,  the  phrase  may  have 
constituted  a  part  of  the  creed  as  known  to 
Irenseus,  its  omission  by  Tertullian  in  all  his  state- 
ments of  the  creed  makes  it  probable  that  it  did 
not,  but  was  added  later,  as  was  the  case  with 
various  other  phrases. 

6.  'E/c  TTveuiioLTos  ayiov  is  wanting  in  the  third 
article  both  in  Irenseus  and  Tertullian.  But  in  the 
second  of  the  passages  quoted  just  above  from  Ter- 
tullian [Adv.  Prax.,  2)  we  have  :  mission  a  patre  in 
virginem  et  ex  ea  nation;  and  in  the  third  (De  Prae- 
scriptione,  13) :  delatum  ex  spiritu  patris  deietvhtute  in 
virginem  Mariam  ;  and  in  Adv.  Marc,  V.  17  we  have 
nation  ex  virgine  dei  spiritu  (cf .  also  De  Came  Ch?*isti, 
passim).  The  wide  variations  in  form  in  these 
and  many  others  of  Tertullian' s  references  to  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  connection  with  the 
birth  of  Christ  go  to  confirm  the  conclusion  sug- 
gested by  their  omission  in  De  Virg.  VeL,  1  and  De 
Praescriptione,  36,  that  the  words  de  Spiritu  Sancto 
did  not  form  a  part  of  the  creed  used  by  him,  and 
as  they  are  not  testified  to  by  Irenaeus,  it  may 
fairly  be  assumed  that  they  were  not  in  the  origi- 
nal text  of  R.  This  assumption  is  still  further 
strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  reference  to  the 


92  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  connection  with  the 
birth  of  Jesus  is  lacking  also  in  the  creeds  of  Lucian 
the  Martyr  (see  Hahn,  §§  129  and  156,  and  Katten- 
busch, I.  p.  252  seq.  and  262  seq.),  of  Antioch 
(Hahn,  §  130;  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  220  seq.);and  of 
Laodicea  (Hahn,  §  131  ;  cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.  p. 
223),  — a  fact  which  makes  it  altogether  probable 
that  they  were  lacking  in  the  original  symbol  of 
Syria-Palestine,  which  there  is  good  reason  for 
thinking  was  based  upon  E  (see  below,  p.  103).  It 
is  perhaps  worth  noting  in  this  connection  that 
both  Hippolytus  and  Origen,  the  former  of  whom 
certainly  and  the  latter  possibly  knew  R  as  it 
existed  early  in  the  third  century,  in  referring  to 
the  virgin  birth  mention  Mary  first  and  the  Spirit 
afterward  (see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  141  and  358). 
It  is  not  impossible  that  there  is  a  hint  here  that 
R  at  that  time  contained  no  mention  of  the  agency 
of  the  Spirit  or  that  the  reference  had  been 
recently  added  and  the  form  of  the  article  was  not 
yet  securely  fixed.1 

7.  The  article  on  the  Holy  Church  is  wanting 
both  in  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian.  In  his  tract  on 
Baptism,  chapter  6,  Tertullian  says  "  Cum  autem 
sub  tribus  et  testatio  fidei  et  sponsio  salutis  pigne- 

1  The  creed  of  the  Marcionite  Apelles,  as  reconstructed  by 
Harnack  (see  above,  p.  69),  has  curb  Mapias  rrjs  -Trapdevov,  but  no 
reference  to  the  Spirit.  If  the  creed  was  based  upon  R,  as  Har- 
nack thinks,  it  may  be  used  as  another  witness  against  the  presence 
of  the  phrase  e*  irvevfiaros  &ylov  in  the  original  text. 


THE   ORIGINAL    TEXT  93 

rentur,  necessario  adjicitur  ecclesiae  mentio,  quo- 
niam  ubi  tres,  id  est  Pater  et  Filius  et  Spiritus 
Sanctus,  ibi  ecclesia,  quae  trium  corpus  est." 
These  words  are  commonly  taken  to  prove  that 
the  Old  Roman  Symbol  contained  an  article  on  the 
church  in  the  time  of  Tertullian.  In  Tertullian's 
various  statements  of  the  creed  no  such  article 
occurs,  and  the  same  is  true  of  Irenaeus.  It  is  of 
course  possible  that  the  creed  they  used  contained 
the  article  in  question  (dylav  iKKkr)criav,  as  in  the 
fourth  century  text  of  R,  or  simply  e/c/cX^criW, 
which  is  the  most  that  Tertullian  implies  in  De 
Bapt.,  6),  and  that  both  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian 
omitted  it  in  their  statements  of  the  creed  because 
it  was  of  no  particular  importance  to  them.  But 
on  the  other  hand  it  is  equally  possible  that  in 
speaking  of  the  church  in  De  Bapt,  6,  Tertullian 
was  not  thinking  of  the  creed,  and  that  the  men- 
tion of  the  church  with  the  names  of  Father,  Son 
and  Spirit  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  creed.  If 
the  church  was  thus  mentioned  in  connection  with 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  as  the  representative  of 
God  on  earth  or  the  earthly  embodiment  of  the 
divine  [quoniam  ubi  tres,  id  est  Pater  et  Filius  et 
Sjriritus  Sanctus,  ibi  ecclesia,  quae  trium  corpus  est),  it 
would  be  natural  for  an  article  upon  the  church 
to  make  its  way  later  into  the  creed.  Such  an 
article  was  already  in  it  at  the  time  of  Cyprian, 
but  there  it  has  the  peculiar  form  in  remissione?n 


94  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

peccatonmi  et  vitam  aeternam  per  sanctam  ecclesiam, 
a  form  which  persisted  for  some  time  in  North 
Africa  (see  Hahn,  §§  47,  48,  49).  In  this  particu- 
lar case  it  is  easier  to  understand  the  addition  of 
the  article  in  the  early  third  century,  when  there 
was  much  controversy  touching  the  nature  of  the 
church,  than  its  insertion  at  the  time  of  the  com- 
position of  the  creed,  fifty  or  seventy-five  years 
earlier.  Under  the  circumstances  it  would  seem 
that  the  possibility  must  be  recognized  that  the 
article  on  the  church  in  the  fourth  century  text  of 
R  may  be  a  third  century  addition,  like  the  article 
on  the  remission  of  sins,  the  word  povoyevris  and 
the  phrase  4k  TrvevfiaTos  dyiov.  It  may  be  added 
that  the  article  on  the  church  is  apparently  want- 
ing in  the  creed  of  the  Didascalia  mentioned  above 
on  p.  90. 

8.  The  article  on  the  remission  of  sins  is  also 
wanting  in  both  Irenaeus'  and  Tertullian's  repro- 
ductions of  the  creed,  and  there  is  consequently 
good  reason  for  supposing  that  it  too  was  lacking 
in  the  original  text  of  E.  The  article  is  wanting 
likewise  in  the  creed  of  the  Didascalia.  It  should 
also  be  added  that  Origen  in  his  reproductions  of 
the  Rule  of  Faith  nowhere  refers  to  the  remission 
of  sins  (see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  717).  If  he  knew 
R,  as  maintained  by  Kattenbusch,  his  failure  to 
mention  this  article  may  go  to  confirm  the  lack 
of  it  in  the  original  text  of  R. 


THE   ORIGINAL    TEXT  95 

In  the  second  place  Tertullian  disagrees  with 
Irenseus  and  agrees  with  the  fourth  century  text  of 
R  in  the  following  particulars : 

1.  Tertullian  has  crucifixus  in  the  fourth  article 
in  the  passages  quoted  above  from  De  Virg.  Vel.,  1, 
and  De  Praeswiptwne,  13,  while  Irenseus  has  passus. 
It  is  true  that  Tertullian  has  passus  instead  of  cruci- 
fixus  in  Adv.  Prax.,  2,  but  in  that  passage  he  adds 
mortuum  et  sepuUum  secundum  scripturas,  which  was 
certainly  not  in  his  creed  nor  in  R.  And  so  the 
occurrence  of  passus  in  this  passage  cannot  be 
taken  as  evidence  of  its  presence  in  R.  Moreover, 
it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Irenseus'  theological  interest 
is  such  that  passus  receives  great  emphasis  in  his 
writings,  and  so  it  is  easy  to  explain  its  substitu- 
tion for  crucifixus  in  his  reproductions  of  the  creed 
(as  he  substitutes  it  for  mortuus  in  his  quotations 
from  Paul  in  III.  17  :  9  and  III.  19 :  3),  much 
easier  than  to  explain  the  substitution  of  crucifixus 
for  an  original  passus.  It  may  therefore  be  con- 
cluded that  the  fourth  century  text  of  R  is  true 
to  the  original  form  in  reading  crucifixus  instead 
of  passus. 

2.  In  the  fourth  article,  Tertullian  in  one  pas- 
sage [Adv.  Prax.,  2  ;  cf .  also  De  Came  Cliristi,  5) 
agrees  with  the  fourth  century  text  of  R  in  giving 
the  word  sepidtus  which  is  omitted  by  Irenseus.  It 
is  true  that  the  word  mortuus  which  precedes  and 
the    phrase    secundum    scripturas    which    follows 


96  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

(neither  of  which  is  in  the  fourth  century  text 
of  R)  suggest  that  the  occurrence  of  sepultus  here 
is  due  to  the  influence  of  1  Cor.  XV.  4  rather  than 
of  R.  But  in  De  Came  Christi,  5,  we  have  also  cru- 
cifixus  ("  crucifixus  est  dei  filius  .  .  .  et  mortuus  est 
dei  filius  .  .  .  et  sepultus  resurrexit  ")  which  is 
not  in  1  Cor.  XV.  4.  Moreover,  the  word  sepultus 
in  itself  is  so  insignificant  that  it  is  very  difficult 
to  account  for  its  insertion  in  R  without  the  mor- 
tuus with  which  it  is  connected  in  1  Cor.  XV.  4, 
if  it  was  not  originally  a  part  of  R  ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  easy  to  understand  its  omission  by 
Irenseus,  and  by  Tertullian  in  most  of  his  repro- 
ductions of  the  symbol,  because  of  its  apparent 
insignificance.  We  shall  see  when  we  come  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  creed  that  there  may 
have  been  good  reason  for  the  use  of  the  word  in 
the  original  text  of  R,  a  reason  which  was  lacking 
at  a  later  date.  Under  these  circumstances  we 
may  fairly  conclude  that  it  was  a  part  of  the 
original  R.1 

3.  In  the  first  three  passages  quoted  above  Ter- 
tullian has  a  reference  to  the  "  session"  of  Christ 
which  is  wanting  in  Irenaeus'  formulations  of  the 

1  It  should  be  added,  as  possibly  a  further  confirmation  of  the 
presence  of  sepultus  in  the  original  text  of  R,  that  the  creed  of 
Apelles,  according  to  Harnack  (see  above  p.  69),  contained  a  refer- 
ence to  the  burial  as  -well  as  to  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  : 
Kai  eoTavpobOr)  ev  dhrjOeiq  Kai  erd(f)T)  eu  aXrjSeiq  Kal  dveoTrjaev  iv 
akrjdeta. 


THE   ORIGINAL   TEXT  97 

creed  ;  and  in  each  case  the  phrase  used  is  identi- 
cal with  that  found  in  the  fourth  century  text  of 
K  :  ad  dexteram  patris.  It  might  be  thought  that 
the  article  was  added  to  the  original  text  of  R  by 
Tertullian  under  the  influence  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  it  does  not  occur 
there  in  this  form.  Instead  of  irarpos  we  have  in 
the  New  Testament  hvvdjxeo}^  or  Oeov.  The  phrase 
iv  Sefia  tov  Trarpos  occurs  before  Tertullian  only 
in  Irenseus  III.  16 :  9  (in  dextera  patris),  and 
though  there  is  no  formal  creed  in  that  passage 
the  occurrence  of  the  phrase  is  significant,  for 
just  above  Irenseus  has  quoted  Rom.  VIII.  34,  in 
which  are  found  the  words  eV  Sefwx  tov  ®eov. 
The  change  from  Oebs  to  iraTrjp  may  well  have 
been  due  to  the  influence  of  a  familiar  formula, 
and  that  formula  may  well  have  been  R.  Under 
these  circumstances  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
ad  dexteram  patris  (iv  Se£ia  tov  Trarpos)  constituted 
a  part  of  the  original  text  of  R. 

4.  Tertullian  gives  the  return  of  Christ  for 
judgment,  in  the  first  two  passages  quoted  above, 
in  the  simple  form  which  it  has  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury text  of  R :  ventarum  jiidicare  vivos  et  mortuos. 
In  the  third  passage  (De  Praescriptione,  13)  he  has 
a  much  more  elaborate  reference  to  the  second 
coming  which  agrees  in  substance  with  the  paral- 
lel statements  in  Irenseus,  but  is  not  verbally 
identical  with  any  of  them.     It  seems  altogether 

7 


98  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

probable  in  view  of  the  greater  simplicity  of  the 
article  as  found  in  the  fourth  century  text  of  K 
and  in  the  two  passages  of  Tertullian,  and  in  view 
of  the  variations  in  the  article  as  reproduced  by 
Irenaeus,  that  the  former  represents  the  original 
text  and  that  Irenaeus'  statements  contain  his  own 
theological  reflections.  That  Irenaeus  should 
have  worked  his  theological  reflections  into  the 
creed  at  this  point,  as  also  at  some  other  points,  is 
entirely  natural,  for  he  was  interested  always  to 
emphasize  the  salvation  or  real  redemption  of  man 
by  Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  understand  the  later  omission 
from  the  creed  of  the  references  to  salvation  which 
we  find  in  Irenaeus  if  they  constituted  originally 
a  part  of  the  symbol.  The  conclusion  that  the 
fourth  century  text  of  E  represents  the  original 
form  of  this  article  is  still  further  confirmed  by 
the  occurrence  of  the  exact  phraseology  of  R  in  a 
fragment  from  Irenaeus'  work  On  the  Ogdoad 
quoted  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  V.  20 :  2,  where  we 
have  the  words  ep^erac  Kplvai  £&Was  real  veKpovs. 
These  precise  words  are  not  found  in  the  New 
Testament  or  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  before 
Irenaeus.  In  2  Tim.  IV.  1  and  Barnabas  7,  we  have 
jxeWcov  (fxeWovTos)  Kpiveiv  £aWa,9  /ecu  veKpovs ;  in 
Polycarp  2,  epyerai  Kplrqs  £aWo>*>  /cat  veKpwv;  in 
Acts  X.  42  and  Justin,  Dial.  118,  KpiT7)s  ^covtcov 
kclI  vtKpoiv  (cf.  also  1  Pet.  IV.  5  and  2  Clement  1). 


THE   ORIGINAL   TEXT  99 

In  the  third  place  Tertullian  disagrees  both 
with  the  fourth  century  text  of  R  and  with  Iren- 
aeus in  the  omission  of  patrem  in  the  first  article 
of  the  creed.  Taking  Tertullian  alone  we  should 
say  that  patrem  was  not  in  the  creed  known  to  him ; 
and  this  is  maintained  by  Zahn,  Das  apostolische 
Symbolum,  p.  27  sq.  But  Irenaeus  confirms  its  pres- 
ence in  the  original  text  of  R,  for  it  is  to  be 
noticed  that  there  is  no  apparent  reason  for  the 
insertion  of  the  word  by  Irenaeus  if  it  did  not  con- 
stitute a  part  of  the  creed  which  he  was  using. 
He  thought  of  God  as  the  father  of  Christ  rather 
than  of  the  universe,  and  so  the  term  ttolttjp  was 
not  natural  to  him  in  connection  with  TrapTOKparcop 
and  noLrjTT] 5.  And  yet  he  so  uses  it  in  I.  10 :  1, 
where  we  find  the  exact  phrase  of  R  {Oeov  7rarepa 
TTavTOKparopa).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  im- 
possible to  explain  the  omission  of  patrem  by  Ter- 
tullian in  his  reproductions  of  the  creed,  for  like 
Irenaeus  he  thought  of  God  as  father  in  relation 
to  Christ,  not  to  the  universe,  and  especially  in  his 
controversy  with  the  Patripassianists  he  must  find 
TraTTjp  iravTOKpaTojp  awkward.  Still  further,  there 
are  in  Adv.  Prax.  1,  2,  9,  and  in  Be  Corona,  3,  pos- 
sible hints  of  the  presence  of  -rraripa  in  the  creed 
known  to  Tertullian,  and  it  should  be  added  that 
the  word  is  found  in  all  the  other  North  African 
forms  of  the  symbol.  Finally,  it  is  much  more 
difficult  to  account  for  the  insertion  of  the  word 


100  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

irarepa  in  immediate  juxtaposition  to  iravTOKparopa 
in  the  third  century  after  the  word  had  come  to 
be  used  chiefly  of  the  relation  of  God  to  Christ 
than  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  when 
the  term  was  very  commonly  used  to  denote  God's 
relation  to  the  universe.  Taking  all  things  into 
consideration,  it  seems  to  me  practically  certain 
that  irarepa  was  in  the  original  creed,  and  that  its 
omission  by  Tertullian  was  due  to  the  special  theo- 
logical interest  which  controlled  him.  (Compare 
upon  this  point  Harnack,  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie 
und  Kir  die  j  1894,  p.  130  seq.,  and  Kattenbusch  II. 
p.  87  seq.,  both  of  whom  maintain  over  against 
Zahn  that  waripa  was  in  the  original  text  of  R). 

In  the  light  of  this  comparison  of  the  testimony 
of  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  with  the  fourth  century 
text  of  R  we  may  with  more  or  less  confidence 
reconstruct  the  original  text  as  follows: 

TTUTTeva)  ets  6eov  irarepa  iravTOKparopa '  Kal  ets 
XpLcrbv  'Irjcrovv  tov  vlov  avrov,  tov  yevvrjdivTa  e/c 
Mapta?  Trjs  irapOevov,  tov  iirl  Hovtlov  HlXoltov  crrav- 
pcoOevra  Kal  ra^eVra,  rfj  rpiTrj  rjfjuepa  avaardvra  4k 
v€Kpa>v>  avafidvTa  €i?  tovs  ovpavovs,  KaOyjfjievov  iv 
Sefia  tov  7rarpo5,  oOev  ep^erai  Kplvai  £aWas  Kal 
vtKpovs  '   Kal  ets  Trvevpa  ayiov,  aapKos  avdo-Tacriv. 


THE  PLACE   OF  COMPOSITION  101 


IV 

The  Place  of  Composition  of  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol 

That  Rome  was  the  centre  from  which  R  made 
its  way  throughout  the  western  church  is  admitted 
by  all.  Tertullian  testifies  that  his  creed  came 
from  Rome  (see  above,  p.  47)  and  an  examina- 
tion of  the  various  western  creeds  given  by 
Hahn,  p.  22  seq.,  shows  that  R  is  the  basis  of 
them  all  and  that  the  closer  the  connection  be- 
tween any  church  and  Rome  the  closer  the  identity 
between  its  creed  and  R,  and  on  the  other  hand  the 
less  intimate  the  relation  the  greater  the  diver- 
gence from  R  (cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  78  seq.). 

But  there  is  a  marked  difference  of  opinion 
among  scholars  as  to  whether  R  originated  in 
Rome  itself  or  in  the  east.  The  former  view  is 
maintained  by  Harnack  and  Kattenbusch  (see 
Harnack's  article  in  the  third  edition  of  Herzog 
and  his  Chronologie  der  alt-christlichen  Litteratur 
I.  p.  524,  and  see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  321  seq.  and 
960) ;  the  latter  among  others  by  Caspari  (cf .  his 
Qaellen,  Bd.  III.  p.  161),  Zahn  (Das  apostolische 
Symbolum,  p.  37  seq.),  and  most  recently  Sanday 
(Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  October,  1899,  p. 
3  seq.).     Caspari  seems  to  have   made  no  special 


102  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

investigation  of  the  question,  but  apparently  took 
it  for  granted  that  R  originated  in  the  east,  and 
because  of  the  occurrence  of  povoyevy]*;  assigned 
it  to  the  Johannine  circle.  Zahn's  view  is  wrapped 
up  with  his  contention  that  a  symbol  of  which  R 
is  an  outgrowth  existed  even  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles.  But  this  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with 
the  testimony  of  primitive  Christian  literature 
(see  above,  p.  78  seq.).  Sanday's  article  is  chiefly 
devoted  to  showing  that  the  eastern  type  of  creed, 
which  in  agreement  with  many  others  he  regards 
not  as  a  development  of  R  itself,  but  as  a  parallel 
recension  of  an  earlier  eastern  original,  existed 
already  before  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century, 
and  that  therefore  the  suggestion  of  Kattenbusch 
that  R  may  have  found  official  entrance  into  the 
east  in  connection  with  the  condemnation  of  Paul 
of  Samosata  is  unsound.  But  to  show  that  that 
suggestion  is  of  doubtful  value,  or  even  to  show 
that  the  eastern  type  of  creed  was  in  existence 
before  the  time  in  question  is  not  to  disprove  the 
thesis  that  R  originated  in  the  west  and  was  the 
parent  of  the  eastern  symbols  as  Harnack  and 
Kattenbusch  maintain,  for  it  may  easily  have 
found  its  way  to  the  east  long  before.  However 
that  may  be  —  whether  it  is  true  that  the  eastern 
type  was  developed  before  the  time  of  Paul  of 
Samosata  or  not  —  many  indications  point  in  the 
direction  of  a  western  original  for  R.     There  is  in 


THE  PLACE   OF  COMPOSITION  103 

the  first  place  no  trace  of  R  or  of  any  similar 
symbol  in  the  east  until  at  any  rate  well  on  in  the 
third  century,  except  in  a  doubtful  fragment  of 
Melito's  writings  (see  above,  p.  77),  which  proves 
nothing.1  In  the  west,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have 
clear  and  definite  testimony  to  the  existence  of 
R  before  the  end  of  the  second  century. 

Again,  the  symbol  in  use  in  Syria  and  Palestine 
at  the  end  of  the  third  century,  which  can  be 
reconstructed  in  its  main  lines  from  the  symbols 
of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  of  Lucian  and  of  the 
churches  of  Laodicea  and  Antioch  (see  Kattenbusch, 
II.  p.  192  seq.),  is  evidently,  as  admitted  by  all, 
an  enlargement  either  of  R  itself  or  of  an  older 
creed  upon  which  R  too  is  based,  and  it  is 
noticeable  that  the  additions  to  the  common 
stock  in  the  east  are  of  an  entirely  different 
character  from  the  original  text,  while  the  addi- 
tions in  the  west  whether  in  R  or  in  our  present 
Apostles'  Creed  are  of  the  same  nature  as  the 
original  to  which  they  are  added.  The  western 
character  of  the  parent  symbol  is  thus  strikingly 
shown. 

On  the  other  hand,  aside  from  the  presumption 
that  all  Christian  institutions  of  the  earliest  days 

i  If  Origen  knew  R,  as  maintained  by  Kattenbiioch  (see  his 
careful  discussion  in  Vol.  II.  p.  134  seq.),  the  fact  proves  no  more, 
as  Kattenbusch  shows,  than  that  he  may  have  become  acquainted 
with  it  during  his  visit  to  Rome  in  the  time  of  Zephyrinus. 


104  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

originated  in  the  east  and  were  carried  thence  to 
Rome  —  a  presumption  which  should  be  allowed 
no  weight  in  the  present  case  —  the  only  argument 
which  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  an  eastern  origin 
for  R  is  the  occurrence  in  the  oriental  creeds  of  the 
fourth  century  of  certain  words  and  phrases  which 
are  wanting  in  R,  but  are  found  in  Irenseus' 
reproductions  of  the  symbol.  Thus  eva  with  6eov 
and  with  XpuaTov  'Irjaovv ;  7701777779  k.t.X.  after  Oeov  ; 
ttolOovtcl,  virep  7775  Y)fjL€T€pa<;  o-coTrjpCas,  and  virep 
yjfxcoi/  (or  Sua  rjfxds)  in  the  article  on  Christ ; 
lv  Bogy  k.t.X.  in  connection  with  the  Second  Com- 
ing. The  assumption  is  that  Irenseus  brought  the 
creed  with  him  from  the  east  and  that  his  state- 
ments of  it  represent  its  eastern  and  original  form 
(cf.  Sanday,  p.  21).  But  it  is  to  be  said  in  reply, 
that  the  phrases  referred  to  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter as  to  betray  their  later  origin.  They  are 
certainly  additions  to  R  and  not  a  part  of  its 
original  text,  as  the  theological  character  at  any 
rate  of  most  of  them  plainly  shows.  Moreover,  if 
they  belonged  originally  to  R,  their  subsequent 
omission  is  very  difficult  to  explain. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  phrases  which 
Irenasus  has  in  common  with  the  eastern  symbols 
of  a  later  day  were  already  current  in  the  east  and 
were  brought  thence  by  him  without  yet  having 
been  incorporated  into  a  creed.  Or  it  is  equally 
possible  that  they  took  their  rise  with  him  and 


THE  PLACE   OF   COMPOSITION  105 

found  their  way  into  the  eastern  creed  under  his 
influence.  All  of  them  have  their  explanation  in 
Irenaeus'  own  theology  or  in  his  polemics,  and  it  is 
easier  to  understand  them  as  originating  with  him 
than  with  anybody  else. 

In  the  light  of  these  considerations,  it  may 
fairly  be  concluded,  in  agreement  with  Harnack 
and  Kattenbusch,  that  R  originated  in  Rome, 
not  in  the  orient. 


106  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 


The  Purpose  of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  and 
its  Historical  Interpretation 

The  purpose  for  which  the  Old  Roman  Symbol 
was  composed  cannot  be  finally  determined  until 
we  have  completed  our  study  of  its  contents.  But 
it  is  important  before  we  take  up  the  several 
articles  in  detail,  to  notice  the  situation  that 
existed  in  Rome  at  the  time  the  creed  was  framed, 
that  we  may  see  whether  it  throws  any  light  upon 
the  matter. 

Our  study  has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  R 
originated  in  Rome  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  or  not  long  thereafter.  But  heresy  was 
then  rife  in  Rome,  and  was  causing  serious 
alarm  within  the  church.  If  a  creed  was  framed 
there  at  that  particular  time,  we  should  expect  it 
to  take  some  notice  of  the  errors  which  were 
making  so  much  trouble ;  and  if  no  creed  existed 
before,  so  that  its  formation  constituted  an  inno- 
vation, it  would  be  natural  to  see  in  the  false 
teachings,  which  were  now  for  the  first  time  caus- 
ing alarm,  the  primary  reason  for  its  composition. 
We  come  then  to  our  study  of  the  contents  of  the 
creed   with  a  presumption   in  favor  of   its  anti- 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  107 

heretical  purpose.     The  question  is,  does  the  creed 
itself  bear  out  this  presumption. 

The  movement  which  was  making  most  trouble 
in  the  church  of  Rome  at  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  was  Marcionism,  and  so  an  anti-heretical 
creed  framed  at  that  time  could  hardly  fail  to 
take  account  of  Marcion's  teachings.  The  Mar- 
cionitic  tenets  which  were  most  offensive  to  Christ- 
ians in  general  may  be  gathered  from  Tertullian's 
elaborate  work  against  Marcion.  Those  tenets 
were,  first,  that  the  God  of  the  Christians  is 
not  the  Creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe,  who 
is  hard,  stern,  and  severe,  but  another  being, 
the  God  of  redemption,  who  is  pure  love  and 
mercy  and  was  entirely  unknown  until  revealed 
by  Jesus  Christ  (cf.  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc, 
especially  Bks.  I.  II.  and  IV. ;  also  Justin  Martyr, 
Apol.,  I.  26  and  58 ;  and  IrenaBus,  I.  27) ; 
secondly,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  son  of  the  latter 
being,  and  not  of  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the 
universe  (cf.  Tertullian,  ibid.,  Bks.  III.  IV.  V. 
passim) ;  thirdly,  that  God,  the  father  of  Christ, 
being  pure  love  and  mercy  will  judge  no  one  (ibid., 
I.  6,  26  seq.;  II.  11  seq.;  IV.  8, 15, 17,  19,  21  seq., 
29,  35  seq. ;  V.  4,  7  seq.,  13, 16) ;  fourthly,  that  the 
life  of  Christ  was  that  of  a  spirit  only,  and  his 
bodily  form  a  mere  phantom  (ibid.,  I.  24  ;  II.  28; 
III.  8  seq. ;  IV.  9  seq.,  19 ;  V.  4  seq.,  13,  14,  17,  19 
seq.,  and  De  Came  Christi,  1  seq.,  5  );  and  finally 


108  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

that  the  flesh  of  man  does  not  rise  again  {Adv. 
Marc.  IV.  37 ;  V.  7,  9  seq.,  14  seq.,  18  seq. ;  Be 
Came  Christi,  1  ;  De  Besurrectione  Carnis,  1  seq.). 

A  creed  composed  in  Rome  at  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  if  it  was  framed  with  an  anti- 
heretical  purpose,  must  at  any  rate  rule  out  these 
beliefs,  and  so  we  can  test  the  purpose  of  the 
Old  Eoman  Symbol  in  their  light.  Let  us  then 
examine  the  several  articles  of  the  symbol  in 
detail. 

Ulctt€v(o  ets  deov  iraripa  iravTOKparopa. 

The  first  article  of  the  creed  was  probably 
formed  by  adding  to  the  deos  of  the  baptismal 
formula  (see  p.  184),  the  phrase  7raTrjp  TravTOKparcop. 
UoLTijp  is  used  of  God  very  frequently  in  the 
Christian  literature  of  the  second  century,  with 
the  meaning  of  author  or  creator  of  the  world  or 
the  universe.  Thus  for  instance  irarepa  /cat  ktlo-ttjv 
tov  (rvjJLTravTos  Kocrfiovy  1  Clement  19  ;  Srjfjuovpybs 
/cat  TTarrjp  tojv  aicovcov,  1  Clement  35  ;  iraTrjp  iravTw 
or  tcov  oXcov  (with  or  without  §6(7770x175,  Kvpios,  or 
SrjiJLLovpyos),  Justin,  Apol.  I.  12,  32,  36,  40,  44,  46, 
61,  63,  65;  II.  6,  10;  Dial.  95,  105,  108,  115, 
127,  128,  140 ;  al<T0r)T(ov  /cat  dopdrcov  Trarrj p, 
Tatian,  Apol.  4.  Compare  also  the  statement  of 
Theophilus,  Ad  Autolycum  I.  4  :  "  God  is  father 
because  he  is  before  all  things"  (TraTrjp  Stct  to  that 
ovtov  irpo  tcov  oXcov).  HaTrjp  is  also  used  (fre- 
quently by  John,  Ignatius,  and  Justin,  not  so  often 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  109 

by  other  writers)  to  express  the  relation  of  God  to 
Christ ;  but  this  is  less  common  than  the  other 
meaning  in  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing, 
and  except  in  the  Johannine  and  Ignatian  writ- 
ings iraTrjp  almost  never  has  this  sense  when  used 
alone,  but  only  when  explicitly  connected  with 
Christ.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  ttclttjp  in  R, 
especially  in  view  of  its  connection  with  ttolvto- 
Kpdrcop,  means,  not  the  father  of  Christ  or  of  the 
Son,  but  the  father  of  the  world,  or  the  universe, 
that  is,  its  creator,  author,  or  source. 

UavTOKpaTojp,  a  common  word  in  the  Septuagint, 
occurs  only  nine  times  in  the  New  Testament 
(once  in  2  Corinthians  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old 
Testament,  and  eight  times  in  the  Apocalypse), 
but  often  in  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  (e.  g., 
in  1  Clement,  Polycarp,  Hermas,  Mart.  Polyc, 
Justin,  Theophilus).  It  is  used  commonly  with 
#eo<?  or  Kvpios,  with  naTijp  only  twice  before  the 
time  of  Irenaeus,  in  Justin's  Dial.  139  (tov  iravro- 
Kparopos  TTarpos),  and  in  the  Martyrdom  of  Poly- 
carp,  19  {tov  6eov  Kal  ^rarepa  TravroKpdropa) .  The 
exact  phrase  of  R  (Oebs  irarr}p  TravroKpaTCDp)  occurs 
nowhere,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  before  Irenaeus, 
and  in  Irenaeus  probably  under  the  influence  of  R 
(see  p.  50  seq.).  The  word  iravTOKparcop  means, 
not  "almighty"  (omnipotens),  but  "holding''  or 
"  controlling  "  or  "  governing  all  things  "  (omni- 
tenens,    or  qui    omnia   continei).     Compare  for  in- 


110  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

stance,  Theophilus,  I.  4 :  "  He  is  it  avr  ok  par  up 
because  he  holds  and  contains  all  things  (to  irdvra 
Kparel  koX  ifinepLe^eL),  for  the  heights  of  heaven, 
and  the  depths  of  the  abyss,  and  the  ends  of  the 
world  are  in  his  hands."  The  word,  therefore, 
refers  to  the  sovereignty  or  providence  of  God,  and 
the  phrase  irar^p  TravTOKpdrojp  expresses  in  the 
most  compact  possible  form,  the  belief  that  God 
made  and  rules  the  world,  that  he  is  its  father  and 
sovereign. 

The  phrase  subsequently  added  to  K  and  found 
in  the  present  text  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  (crea- 
torem  cceli  et  terrce),  adds  nothing  to  the  sense  of  the 
original  article  and  really  makes  its  meaning  no 
more  explicit,  except  for  an  age  which  instinc- 
tively interpreted  irarrip  as  referring  to  the  first 
person  of  the  Trinity,  or  the  father  of  Christ.  It 
was  because  the  word  "  Father  "  commonly  had 
this  latter  meaning  in  the  usage  of  Irenseus  and 
Tertullian  that  they  found  themselves  obliged  to 
add  phrases  referring  explicitly  to  the  creation, 
when  they  reproduced  the  regalajidei(see  pp.  50, 89). 
But  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  additions 
made  the  truth  that  God  is  the  maker  or  source 
of  the  universe,  any  more  clear  than  the  term 
naTTJp  made  it  to  the  author  of  R  and  his  con- 
temporaries. In  fact  the  brief  phrase  irar^p 
7ravTOKpdro)p  better  expresses  the  belief  in  God 
as  author  and  ruler  of  the  world,  than  the  more 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  111 

elaborate  iraTijp  TravTOKparcop  iroirjTrjs  ovpavov  kcu 
yrjs,  for  the  latter  fixes  the  attention  on  crea- 
tion very  largely  to  the  exclusion  of  providence 
(the  iravTOKpaTcop  in  this  collocation  meaning 
hardly  more  than  omnipotens) ;  while  in  the  former 
the  two  are  equally  emphasized. 

The  choice  of  the  rare  but  pregnant  phrase 
7raTr)p  iravroKpoLTCDp,  when  so  many  other  phrases 
expressing  God's  relation  to  the  world  were  in 
common  use,  cannot  have  been  accidental ;  and 
it  should  not  be  treated  as  if  it  were  used  thought- 
lessly and  without  discrimination.  It  is  evident 
that  this  particular  phrase  was  chosen  with  the 
distinct  purpose  of  asserting  that  the  Christians' 
God,  the  God  believed  in  and  worshipped  by 
Christians,  is  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe. 
Of  course  it  is  conceivable  that  this  assertion  may 
have  been  made  without  any  thought  of  existing 
errors  on  the  subject,  but  it  is  so  directly  opposed 
to  the  teaching  of  Marcion  that  it  is  difficult  to 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  it  was  intended  as  a 
protest  against  his  view. 

Kal   €t?   XpLcrTov    'irjcrovv,   rov    vlov   avrov    \rov 

Kattenbusch  maintains  that  the  word  Xpioros  is 
here  used  not  as  a  proper  name  but  as  an  official 
designation,  and  that  it  is  to  be  taken  predica- 
tively,  so  that  the  phrase  cis  Xpicrrbv  'Irj&ovv  ex- 
presses the  belief  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah.     But 


112  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

certainly  if  that  had  been  the  author's  purpose 
he  could  not  well  have  expressed  himself  more 
blindly.  The  position  of  the  words  and  the 
omission  of  the  article  with  XpucrTos  both  make 
such  an  interpretation  unnatural,  to  say  the  least. 
Moreover,  the  interpretation  runs  counter  both  to 
the  general  interest  and  purpose  of  R  and  to 
the  common  usage  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
composed. 

Kattenbusch  holds  that  the  church  in  which  R 
originated  was  essentially  a  "  Messias-Gemeinde," 
primarily  interested,  as  Peter  was  at  Pentecost,  to 
maintain  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  against  the  un- 
believing Jews.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is 
not  a  single  hint  in  R  of  any  such  interest ;  and 
what  we  know  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  where  R 
was  framed  according  to  Kattenbusch,  lends  little 
support  to  the  theory  that  it  was  dominated  by 
that  interest  in  the  second  century.  If  it  were 
to  be  supposed  that  XpuaTos  was  used  by  the 
author  of  R  in  its  Jewish  sense  of  "  anointed  " 
or  "  Messiah,"  it  would  be  easier  and  more  in  line 
with  the  remainder  of  the  creed  to  interpret  it  as 
joined  with  'I^crous  for  the  purpose  of  asserting 
the  identity  of  the  historic  figure  Jesus  with  the 
Messiah  prophesied  in  the  Old  Testament  over 
against  Marcion's  denial  of  the  identity.  But 
the  current  use  of  the  word  X/hctto?  in  the  age 
in  which  R  originated  was  such  that  it  is  alto- 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  113 

gether  probable  that  the  author  of  R  used  the 
word  simply  as  a  proper  name  with  no  special 
interest  in  its  historic  Jewish  meaning.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  the  word,  whether  with 
or  without  'lrjcrovs,  was  commonly  employed  in 
that  way  in  his  day.  Even  in  the  epistles  of 
Paul,  who  as  a  Jew  would  be  always  conscious  of 
the  original  meaning  of  Xpuo-Tos  if  any  one  was, 
the  word  occurs  far  more  often  as  a  proper 
name  than  as  a  title.  And  the  same  is  true  of 
the  post-canonical  writings  of  the  first  and  sec- 
ond centuries. 

In  Paul,  according  to  the  consensus  of  the  most 
recent  editors,  Xpiords  alone,  more  often  without 
than  with  the  article,  occurs  most  frequently,  but 
Xptcrros  'irjcrovs  and  'I^crov?  Xptord?  each  upward 
of  sixty  times.  In  the  Apostolic  fathers  'I^crous 
Xpicrrds  is  commonest,  but  Xpicrrds  alone  and 
Xptcrro?  'Irjo-ovs  also  occur  not  infrequently  and 
apparently  with  no  distinction  in  meaning.  The 
three  are  used  indifferently  also  in  Irenaeus,  while 
in  Justin's  Apologies,  according  to  Otto's  edition, 
Xptcrro?  'lr)crov<;  does  not  appear.  The  use  of 
X/Hcrros  'Itjo-ovs,  therefore,  instead  of  'Irjaovs  Xpicr- 
tos  in  R  indicates  only  that  with  the  author 
of  the  creed  it  was  the  common  designation  for 
Christ,  or  more  probably  that  being  less  common 
it  was  selected  as  more  solemn  and  striking.  In 
any  case  its  meaning  in  R  is  the  same  as  if  it 


114  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

were  'Irjaovs  XpuaTos ;  it  is  simply  a  proper  name 
to  designate  the  historic  figure  Jesus  Christ. 

The  full  name  Xpioros  'Irjo-ovs,  instead  of  Xpiaro^ 
or  'Irjo-ovs  alone,  might  conceivably  have  been 
used  with  the  special  purpose  of  making  impossi- 
ble the  Gnostic  separation  of  the  aeon  Xpio-rds 
from  the  human  person  'Irjaovs,  thus  repudiating 
one  of  the  current  forms  of  docetism,  but  in  view 
of  the  prevalence  of  the  double  name,  and  of  the 
formal  character  of  R  which  would  make  its  use 
here  all  the  more  natural,  such  special  purpose 
must  be  recognized  as  doubtful. 

The  words  tov  vlov  avrov  are  to  be  taken  pre- 
dicatively.  They  were  added  to  Xpicrrbv  'Irjcrovv 
in  order  to  assert  that  the  historic  figure  Christ 
Jesus  is  the  son  of  the  0eb<z  warrip  iravroKpdraip 
referred  to  in  the  first  article.  It  is  evidently 
the  controlling  purpose  of  the  second  article  to 
assert  belief  not  primarily  in  Christ  Jesus,  but 
in  the  relation  that  subsisted  between  him  and 
the  Father  and  Ruler  of  the  world.  Belief  in 
Christ  Jesus  was  involved  in  the  very  act  of 
baptism,  but  the  relation  between  him  and  the 
creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe  was  matter  of 
dispute. 

The  article  taken  by  itself  might  have  either  of 
two  references.  It  might  be  intended  to  assert 
Christ's  divine  sonship,  over  against  the  heathen 
denial  that  he  was  a  divine  messenger  and  the 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  115 

bearer  of  a  divine  revelation  (cf.  Justin,  ApoL  I. 
24seq.),  and  this  interpretation  would  accord  well 
with  the  mention  of  the  crucifixion  just  below,  as 
it  was  chiefly  because  of  the  crucifixion  that  the 
claims  of  Christ  were  ridiculed  and  rejected.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  article  might  be  interpreted 
as  asserting  that  Christ  Jesus  is  the  son  of  the 
God  who  made  and  rules  the  world,  over  against 
Marcion's  view  that  there  is  no  connection  be- 
tween them,  but  that  Christ  is  the  son  of  another 
God  altogether.  (Compare  the  words  of  Tertullian 
in  Adv.  Marc.  III.  1 :  "By  proving  Christ  to  be  the 
creator's  son  we  shut  out  the  God  of  Marcion.") 
Read  in  the  light  of  the  first  article  and  also  of 
the  creed  as  a  whole,  the  latter  interpretation 
seems  to  me  alone  allowable. 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  evident  that  the 
article  refers  not  to  the  pre-existent  son  of  God  — 
the  divine  Logos,  or  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity  —  but  to  the  historic  figure  Jesus.  Di- 
vine sonship  is  asserted  only  of  the  historic  person 
who  was  born  of  a  virgin,  was  crucified,  buried 
and  raised  again  from  the  dead.  Whether  that 
person  existed  before  his  birth  from  a  virgin  R 
does  not  say.  It  does  not  exclude  belief  in  such 
pre-existence,  but  on  the  other  hand  it  does  not 
assert  it,  nor  even  hint  at  it  in  the  remotest  way. 
A  comparison  of  R  with  the  Nicene  creed  and 
other  related  creeds  of  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 


116  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

turies  is  very  striking  in  this  connection.  Thus 
the  original  Nicene  creed  reads  :  "  One  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  son  of  God,  begotten  from  the  Father, 
only  begotten,  that  is  from  the  ousia  of  the 
Father,  God  from  God,  Light  from  Light,  true 
God  from  true  God,  begotten  not  made,  homo- 
ousios  with  the  Father,  through  whom  all  things 
were  made  .  .  .  who  for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation  came  down  and  became  flesh,"  etc.  So 
also  the  creed  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  reads : 
"  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Logos  of  God,  God 
from  God,  light  from  light,  life  from  life,  Son 
only  begotten,  first  born  of  every  creature,  before 
all  the  aeons  from  the  Father  begotten,  through 
whom  also  all  things  were  made,  who  for  our 
salvation  became  flesh,"  etc. 

At  the  time  when  R  was  framed  the  belief  in 
the  pre-existence  of  the  Son  of  God  was  wide- 
spread (though  not  universal,  as  appears  from 
Justin,  Dial.  48),  and  the  omission  of  the  doctrine 
in  R  is  very  significant.  It  does  not  show  that 
the  author  did  not  believe  it,  but  it  does  show 
that  he  was  interested  here  in  another  matter 
altogether.  He  was  not  concerned  to  say  what 
he  or  the  church  believed  in  general  about  Christ, 
he  could  hardly  have  avoided  some  reference  to 
the  pre-existence  in  that  case,  either  by  way  of 
assent  or  dissent,  but  he  was  concerned  to  assert 
a  particular  truth  about  Christ,  which  was  denied 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  117 

by  many,  the  truth  namely  that  the  historic  figure 
Jesus  Christ  is  6  vlbs  Oeov  7rarpo9  iravTOKpdropos. 
In  the  light  of  contemporary  Christian  literature 
(2  Clement,  Hermas,  Justin,  and  the  other  apolo- 
gists) this  is  the  only  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  author's  failure  to  refer  in  any  way  to  the 
pre-existence  of  the  Son. 

As  was  seen  above,  p.  91,  it  is  doubtful,  in  the 
light  of  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian, 
whether  the  phrase  rov  Kvpiov  rjfjiojv  constituted  a 
part  of  the  original  text  of  R.  In  itself  there  is 
nothing  suspicious  about  the  phrase.  The  title 
Kvptos  was  commonly  applied  to  Christ  by  the 
Christian  writers  of  the  first  and  second  centuries, 
and  it  might  naturally  have  been  inserted  in  R, 
whether  the  author  was  thinking  of  heathen  and 
unbelievers  or  of  heretics.  In  the  former  case  the 
common  contempt  for  Christ  might  well  have  led 
to  an  assertion  of  his  Lordship ;  in  the  latter  case 
it  might  have  seemed  important  to  make  still  more 
explicit  the  fact  that  the  Christ  Jesus  who  was 
declared  to  be  the  son  of  the  God  of  creation  and 
providence  was  not  the  mere  Jewish  Messiah 
whose  relation  to  the  creating  God  of  course 
Marcion  would  have  no  trouble  in  recognizing  (cf. 
Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  IV.  6,  V.  16),  but  the  Christ 
whom  all  Christians,  Marcion  as  well  as  others, 
recognized  as  Lord.  We  can  thus,  even  on  the 
assumption  that  the  Creed  was   anti-Marcionitic 


118  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

in  its  interest,  explain  satisfactorily  the  presence 
of  the  words  in  the  original  text  of  R,  while  at 
the  same  time  it  is  clear  that  the  article  would 
adequately  fulfil  its  purpose  if  the  words  were 
lacking,  as  they  possibly  were. 

When  the  words  were  added,  if  they  were  not 
in  the  original  text,  we  do  not  know,  but  probably 
when  the  phrase  e/c  TrvevfjuaTos  dyiov  was  inserted 
in  the  next  article  and  under  the  same  impulse. 
The  addition  of  the  words  would  introduce  noth- 
ing new  into  the  creed,  any  more  than  Ik  irvev- 
/xaros  aytou,  but  both  additions  would  indicate  a 
change  of  interest  and  of  emphasis. 

MovoyevTJs,  which  apparently  formed  no  part  of 
the  original  text  of  R  (see  p  90  above),  was  prob- 
ably added  at  about  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  general  interest :  to  emphasize  the  unique- 
ness of  Christ's  sonship  and  so  his  exaltation 
above  other  men.  Such  uniqueness  was  unques- 
tionably involved  in  the  original  creed.  It  never 
occurred  to  the  author,  or  to  any  of  his  Christian 
contemporaries,  to  think  of  Christ  as  a  son  of  God 
only  in  the  sense  in  which  every  other  man  is 
God's  son,  but  as  the  author  was  interested  in 
the  identity  of  the  Father  of  Christ  with  the 
Father  and  Lord  of  the  universe,  and  in  the 
reality  of  the  earthly  life  of  Christ,  there  was  no 
reason  for  emphasizing  the  difference  between  his 
sonship  and  that  of  other  men,  which  indeed  no 


HISTORICAL   fNTERPRETATION  119 

one  questioned.  The  addition  of  the  word,  which 
was  getting  into  common  use  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century,  doubtless  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  was  entirely  natural.1 
Whether  the  use  of  the  word  by  the  Gnostics  as 
a  name  for  Christ  (see  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  8  : 
5 ;  9:2;  III.  11 :  1  ;  IV.  praef.  3 ;  IV.  33 :  3)  had 
anything  to  do  with  it  we  cannot  say,  but  it  is  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  its  insertion  was  for  a 
polemical  purpose,  to  oppose  the  aeon  doctrine 
of  the  Gnostics,  which  made  Christ  only  one  of  a 
number  of  aeons  or  emanations  from  deity  ;  for  the 
term  was  common  in  Gnostic  circles  and  its  appli- 
cation to  Christ  in  R  would  have  no  weight  over 
against  them.  Whenever  it  was  inserted  it  was 
intended  not  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  aeons  but 
to  emphasize  the  dignity  of  the  historic  person 
Jesus  Christ,  the  uniqueness  of  his  sonship  when 
compared  with  that  of  other  men.  Whatever 
its  significance  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  R  it 
refers  not  to  the  pre-existent  son  or  Logos,  but 
to  the  historic  figure  Jesus  Christ,  the  person 
yevvrjOevTOL  e/c  7TvevfxaT0<;  ayiov  /ecu  Mapias  ttjs 
irapOevov. 

1  Compare  Martyrdom  of  Poly  carp,  20  ;  Justin,  Dial.  105,  and  his 
Syntagma,  quoted  by  Irenaeus,  IV.  6:2;  Testament  of  Benjamin, 
9;  Irenaeus,  I.  9:2,  3;  10  :  3  ;  III.  16:2,6,7,9;  III.  17  :  4;  IV.  5  : 
4;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Prax.  7.  The  word  is  found,  referring  to 
Christ,  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  except  in  the  Gospel  and 
First  Epistle  of  John,  and  nowhere  in  the  Apostolic  fathers. 


120  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

Tbv  yevvr)64vTa  Ik  Ma/H<xs  ttj<;  Trapdivov '   rbv  iirl 

UOVTLOV  HlXcLTOV  (TTOLVptoOeVTOL  Kdl  TOL(f)€VTa,  TTj  TplTTj 

rjfjLepa  ava&TavTa  4k  vtKpcov,  ava^avra  et?  rovs 
ovpavovs,  KaOrjfJievov  iv  Sefia  rov  iraTpb<;y  oOev 
ep^erat  Kplvcu  £aWa?  /cal  veKpovs. 

The  seven  items  mentioned  in  this  section  of  the 
creed  —  birth,  crucifixion,  burial,  resurrection,  as- 
cension, session,  and  second  coming  —  though  all 
of  them  are  referred  to  in  one  place  or  another,  are 
found  together  nowhere  in  Christian  literature  be- 
fore the  composition  of  R.  So  far  as  our  sources 
enable  us  to  judge,  the  series  is  original  with  the 
author  of  R  and  represents  a  conscious  selection 
on  his  part.  It  should  throw  light  therefore  upon 
the  interest  which  governed  him  in  the  compo- 
sition of  the  creed. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  us  is  the  large 
number  of  omissions.  The  author  passes  directly 
from  the  birth  to  the  crucifixion  without  any 
reference  to  Christ's  Davidic  lineage,  or  to  the 
fact  that  he  has  fulfilled  the  Scriptures  (omis- 
sions which  are  fatal  to  Kattenbusch's  interpre- 
tation of  the  creed  as  controlled  by  the  Messianic 
interest),  and  without  any  reference  to  his  bap- 
tism, his  sinless  life,  his  teaching,  his  revelation 
of  God's  will  and  truth,  his  works  of  mercy 
and  of  power,  his  victory  over  demons,  the  king- 
dom which  he  came  to  found,  his  significance  as  a 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETA  TION  121 

Saviour,  and  the  purpose  of  his  death.  All  these 
matters  are  made  much  of  in  the  Christian  writ- 
ings of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  and  their 
omission  demands  an  explanation.  That  they 
were  not  omitted  for  brevity's  sake  simply  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  other  things  of  less  moment 
and  less  frequently  referred  to  in  the  literature  of 
the  period  find  a  place  in  the  symbol,  for  instance 
the  burial  and  the  ascension.  It  cannot  have 
been  mere  accident  or  mere  desire  to  make  the 
creed  as  short  as  possible  that  led  to  the  omission 
of  the  most  important  of  all  truths  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Christians  of  that  day,  that  Christ  had 
brought  a  knowledge  of  God's  will  and  truth,  that 
he  was  a  Saviour,  and  that  he  had  died  "  for  our 
sins"  or  "for  us."  If  the  purpose  of  the  creed 
was  to  summarize  the  faith  of  the  church  touching 
Christ  and  his  work  ;  if  it  had  an  historical,  or  an 
evangelical,  or  a  catechetical  purpose,  if  it  was  in- 
tended to  put  before  new  converts,  or  disciples  in 
general  the  fundamental  facts  and  truths  of  the 
Gospel,  it  could  not  have  omitted  all  it  did.  Nor 
if  its  purpose  was  apologetic,  to  defend  Christ 
and  Christianity  against  the  attacks  of  heathen 
and  unbelievers,  could  it  have  passed  altogether 
Christ's  character,  and  his  wonderful  works,  in- 
cluding his  subjection  of  demons,  which  was  still 
manifested  in  the  exorcism  of  evil  spirits  by  the 
mere  mention  of  his  name.     (Compare  the  Apolo- 


122  THE  APOSTLES1   CREED 

gies  of  Justin,  who  makes  a  great  deal  of  Christ's 
victory  over  the  demons.) 

The  only  plausible  explanation  of  the  many  and 
striking  omissions  would  seem  to  be  that  the 
author  of  R  was  concerned  simply  to  repudiate 
certain  false  views  about  Christ  which  were  caus- 
ing particular  trouble  at  the  time  he  wrote,  and 
omitted  everything  which  was  not  immediately 
related  thereto.  Is  this  explanation  borne  out  by 
the  facts?  Let  us  take  up  the  items  severally 
and  in  detail. 

Top  yevvrjOivTa  e'/c  Maptas  Trjs  irapOivov. 

The  words  e'/c  7r^ev/xaro5  ayiov  were  wanting  in 
the  original  text  of  R  as  shown  on  p.  91  above. 
The  phrase  e'/c  Mapias  ttjs  irapdivov  of  course  car- 
ried with  it  by  implication  the  uniqueness  and 
rairaculousness  of  Christ's  birth,  in  which  the 
author  certainly  believed,  but  it  is  clear  that  he 
was  interested  not  in  the  miraculousness  but  in 
the  reality  of  the  birth,  as  Ignatius  also  was  (cf., 
e.  g.  Smyrn.  1).  If  it  had  been  its  miraculous 
character  that  interested  him,  if  it  had  been  the 
divineness  of  Christ's  origin  that  he  was  concerned 
to  emphasize,  he  could  not  have  contented  himself 
with  the  simple  phrase  quoted  above.  If  the  words 
e/c  Trvevfiaros  ayiov  constituted  a  part  of  the  orig- 
inal text  there  might  be  ground  for  thinking  that 
the  author  wished  to  emphasize  Christ's  divine 
origin,  though  even  then  we  could  not  be  sure  of 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  123 

it ;  but  in  the  absence  of  those  words  it  is  impos- 
sible to  think  so.  He  evidently  wished  to  assert 
that  Christ  was  actually  born  —  a  fact  which  was 
denied  by  Marcion,  who  held  that  he  came  down 
suddenly  from  heaven  a  full-grown  man  —  and 
that  his  earthly  life  was  therefore  a  reality,  which 
Marcion  also  denied. 

The  use  of  the  preposition  4k  is  to  be  noticed  in 
this  connection.  Ignatius,  who  is  very  persistent 
in  his  emphasis  upon  the  reality  of  Christ's  earthly 
life  over  against  docetism,  has  the  same  prepo- 
sition (Trail,  9;  Smym.,  1),  while  Justin,  who  has 
a  great  deal  to  say  about  the  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
and  is  more  concerned  to  maintain  his  divinity 
than  the  reality  of  his  earthly  life,  commonly  uses 
the  preposition  Sia  in  speaking  of  the  Virgin 
birth.  But  Sia  makes  it  easier  to  look  upon  the 
birth,  as  the  Yalentinians  for  instance  did,  as 
unreal,  and  as  meaning  only  the  passage  of  a  pre- 
existent  being  through  the  womb  of  the  Virgin, 
without  actually  becoming  man  or  assuming 
human  flesh  (cf.  Irenaeus,  I.  7,  2,  and  Tertullian, 
Be  Came  Christi,  30).  The  preposition  4k,  on  the 
other  hand,  makes  any  such  interpretation  impos- 
sible. Whether  Sia  was  consciously  rejected  in 
favor  of  4k  by  the  author  of  R,  as  it  was  by 
Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  we  do  not  know,  but  at 
any  rate  4k  serves  to  bring  out  clearly  the  reality 
of  the  birth  as  Sia  would  not  have  done. 


124  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

That  R  says  only  yevviqdevTa,  while  Ignatius 
makes  the  statement  more  emphatic  by  the  use 
of  the  adverb  aXrjOcos  —  " truly" — is  no  argu- 
ment against  the  polemic  interest  of  the  article  in 
R.  The  simple  statement  of  R  taken  by  itself  is 
just  as  decisive  and  unequivocal  as  the  more 
emphatic  statement  of  Ignatius,  and  whether  one 
shall  say  "  was  truly  born  "  is  purely  a  question  of 
style.  If  the  author  of  R  had  had  before  him  the 
statements  of  Ignatius  and  had  purposely  omitted 
the  a\.r)0a>s  there  might  be  some  significance  in  its 
omission,  but  there  is  no  sign  that  he  had. 

The  reality  of  Christ's  birth  might  have  been 
stated  in  more  general  terms  than  are  used  in  R, 
for  instance  e/c  ywaiKos  ("  of  a  woman  :  "  cf.  Gal. 
IV.  4) ;  but  the  phrase  as  it  stands  makes  the  fact 
much  more  definite  and  carries  with  it  the  accept- 
ance of  the  account  of  Christ's  birth  in  the  first 
and  third  gospels,  which  Marcion  rejected  alto- 
gether. The  mere  statement  of  a  general  belief 
that  Christ  was  born  somewhere  and  at  some  time 
would  be  far  less  effective  and  thoroughgoing  in 
its  repudiation  of  Marcion's  position  than  the  ex- 
plicit declaration  that  he  was  born  of  the  particular 
woman  named  in  the  gospels,  and  in  the  common 
Christian  tradition.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  it  is 
not  said  yevvr)64vTa  e/c  wapOevov  —  "born  of  a 
virgin  "  —  which  might  point  to  a  peculiar  interest 
in  the  virginity  of  Christ's  mother  (as  for  instance 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  125 

in  most  of  Justin's  references  to  Christ's  birth), 
but  yevvr)64vTa  Ik  Ma/nas  rrjs  irapOivov  —  "  born 
of  Mary  the  Virgin "  —  which  shows  that  the 
author  wished  simply  to  identify  her.  The  phrase 
"  Mary  the  Virgin,"  or  "  The  Virgin  Mary,"  was 
not,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  a  common  phrase 
among  the  early  Christians.  In  fact  it  does  not 
occur  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  is  it  found  in 
Christian  literature  prior  to  the  formation  of  R 
except  twice  in  Justin's  Dialogue,  chapter  100 : 
Mapia  rj  TrapQevos,  and  chapter  120 :  Sia  rrjs 
irapOivov  Mapta?.  Although  Justin  refers  to  the 
virgin  birth  some  thirty  times  he  mentions  the 
name  Mary  only  in  these  two  passages  and  in 
Dial.  78.  The  phrase  of  R  therefore  must  have 
been  deliberately  chosen,  and,  as  already  re- 
marked, doubtless  with  the  purpose  of  identify- 
ing the  mother  of  Christ  and  so  making  the 
reference  to  his  birth  more  definite  and  explicit. 
It  is  evident  that  this  article,  with  its  emphasis 
upon  the  reality  of  Christ's  birth  and  not  upon  the 
uniqueness  of  it,  cannot  have  been  directed  against 
heathen  and  unbelievers,  for  they  would  never 
have  thought  of  questioning  the  fact  that  Christ 
was  actually  born ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  regard  it 
as  a  mere  positive  statement  of  the  Christian  faith 
uttered  without  thought  of  heresy  or  error,  for 
it  could  hardly  have  occurred  to  a  Christian  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that   Christ  was  really  born 


126  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

except  in  reply  to  the  denial  of  it.  The  article, 
therefore,  as  it  stands  in  the  original  text  with  the 
emphasis  on  the  reality  of  Christ's  birth,  cannot 
be  satisfactorily  explained,  except  as  a  protest 
against  docetism,  and  more  particularly  the 
docetism  of  Marcion.  And  so  any  one  who  believed 
that  Christ  was  really  born,  and  that  his  life  was  not 
a  mere  phantom,  even  though  he  did  not  believe 
that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin,  was  in  accord  with 
the  spirit  of  the  article  though  not  with  its  form. 

The  phrase  Ik  TrvevfjLaTos  dyiov,  which  was 
probably  inserted  late  in  the  second  or  early  in 
the  third  century,  really  adds  nothing  to  the 
article,  for  the  birth  from  the  Virgin  carried  with 
it  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  as  recounted  in  Matthew 
and  Luke ;  but  it  transfers  the  emphasis  from  the 
reality  of  Christ's  birth  to  his  divine  origin,  and  so 
marks  a  change  of  interest.  It  is  of  a  piece  with 
the  additions  in  the  previous  article  iLovoyevrjs  and 
tov  Kvpiov  rffjicop  (if  the  latter  was  an  addition), 
and  indicates  the  same  desire  to  emphasize  the 
dignity  and  worth  of  Christ,  which  were  equally 
recognized  by  the  author  of  the  original  text,  but 
which  his  purpose  in  composing  the  creed  made  it 
unnecessary  to  lay  stress  upon. 

The  virgin  birth  was  widely  though  not  uni- 
versally believed  at  the  time  R  was  composed. 
It  is  mentioned  nowhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, except  in  the  infancy  sections  of  the  gos- 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  127 

pels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  nor  is  it  referred  to 
by  any  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  except  Ignatius 
who  speaks  of  it  twice  (Eph.  19,  Smyrn.  1).  But 
the  apologist  Aristides  mentions  it  (Apol  2),  and 
Justin  Martyr  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about  it 
(see  Apol.  I.  21,  22,  31,  32,  33,  46,  54 ;  II.  6  ; 
Dial.  23,  43,  45,  48,  54,  57,  63,  66,  67,  68,  70,  71, 
75,  76,  78,  84,  85,  87,  100,  101,  105,  127),  and 
from  his  time  on  there  is  no  lack  of  reference  to  it. 
It  is  clear  that  it  was  a  common  belief  in  Justin's 
day,  but  there  were  still  some  Christians  that  did 
not  accept  it,  as  appears  from  Dial.  48. 

The  early  stages  of  the  belief  we  cannot  trace. 
It  can  hardly  have  originated  with  Matthew  or 
Luke,  upon  the  basis  of  whose  accounts  it  became 
a  part  of  the  faith  of  the  church  (cf.  Justin,  Apol. 
I.  33;  Dial.  78,  84,  100,  105),  for  it  does  not 
dominate  nor  does  it  even  color  their  story  of 
Christ's  life.  In  fact,  it  stands  entirely  isolated 
in  both  gospels.  In  the  form  which  it  has  in 
them,  it  is  quite  different  from  the  belief  in  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ,  which  was  shared  by  Paul 
and  John,  and  must  have  originated  independently 
of  it.  For  what  we  have  in  Matthew  and  Luke  is 
not  the  incarnation  of  a  pre-existent  being,  but 
the  origin  of  a  new  being.  It  is  not  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  (or  the  Logos)  passes  through  the 
womb  of  Mary  and  so  becomes  a  man,  but  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  joins  with  Mary  in  producing  a 


128  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

new  person,  Jesus  Christ  (cf.  Mene'goz,  La  The- 
ologie  de  VEpitre  aux  Hebreux,  p.  91).  And  so  the 
belief  in  the  virgin  birth  and  the  belief  in  the 
pre-existence  and  deity  of  Christ  do  not  depend 
historically  the  one  upon  the  other. 

When  these  two  independent  beliefs  —  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ  and  the  virgin  birth  —  both 
became  current,  they  were  reconciled,  apparently 
without  any  thought  of  a  possible  inconsistency 
between  them,  by  interpreting  the  accounts  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  as  a  description  of  the  method 
by  which  the  pre-existent  Logos  or  Son  of  God 
became  incarnate  (cf.  for  instance  Justin  Martyr, 
Apol.  I.  33,  46  ;  Dial  75,  84,  85,  87,  100,  105 ; 
and  the  fathers  in  general  after  his  time ;  and 
compare  also  the  Nicene  Creed).  Of  this  recon- 
ciliation there  is  no  sign  in  R.  Indeed,  we  have 
in  R  no  hint  of  pre-existence,  and  so  no  recon- 
ciliation is  needed.  The  author  very  likely  be- 
lieved in  Christ's  pre-existence,  but  so  far  as  the 
creed  goes  we  have  the  standpoint  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  represented,  not  the  standpoint  of  Jus- 
tin and  those  who  came  after  him.  Evidently,  as 
already  remarked,  it  was  not  the  virgin  birth  as 
such  in  which  the  author  of  R  was  chiefly  inter- 
ested —  living  when  he  did  he  could  hardly  have 
failed  in  that  case  to  reveal  his  attitude  toward 
the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  —  but  the  reality 
of  the  birth. 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  129 

Tov    iiii    Uovtlov   UlXoltov   CTavpcodevTa   koll   tol- 

<f)€VTGL,    TTj    TplTTj    T)fJL€pa    dvaCTaVTa    €K    V€Kp(OV. 

No  Christian  symbol,  whatever  its  purpose,  could 
well  have  omitted  to  mention  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  the  two  events  in  his  career  which 
bulked  more  largely  than  any  others  in  the  eyes 
of  his  disciples.  It  might  seem  unnecessary  there- 
fore to  seek  for  any  other  explanation  of  the  ref- 
erence to  these  events.  If  the  anti-heretical  purpose 
of  the  creed  called  for  an  allusion  to  Christ  at  all 
and  especially  to  the  fact  of  his  birth,  his  death 
and  resurrection  could  not  well  be  passed  over 
even  though  the  mention  of  them  served  no  po- 
lemic interest. 

But  on  the  other  hand  the  particular  form  of 
the  articles  in  question,  the  reference  to  the  seem- 
ingly unimportant  fact  of  the  burial,  and  the 
general  character  of  the  creed  as  a  whole  suggest 
that  there  may  have  been  some  special  reason 
for  the  mention  in  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  of 
the  crucifixion  and  the  resurrection  as  well  as  of 
the  birth.  And  first  let  us  look  at  the  article 
on  the  crucifixion  :  tov  inl  Uovtlov  HiXdrov  arav- 
pcodevTa,  who  under  (or  in  the  time  of)  Pontius  Pilate 
was  crucified.  The  article  appears  in  this  form 
prior  to  the  composition  of  R  only  in  the  writings 
of  Justin  Martyr  (e.  g.,  Apol  I.  13,  61 ;  II.  6  ;  Dial 
30,  76,  85),  and  there  aravpcoOevra  always  pre- 
cedes eVl  Uovtlov  HlXcltov.     The  full   name  Pon- 


130  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

this  Pilate  is  found  in  Christian  literature  before 
R  in  Luke  III.  1 ;  Acts  IV.  27 ;  1  Tim.  VI.  13 ; 
Ignatius,  Magn.  11,  Trail.  9,  Smyrn.  1,  and  fre- 
quently in  Justin.  The  whole  clause  occurs  re- 
peatedly in  Justin  as  part  of  a  formula  of  exorcism 
(see  above,  p.  72)  and  it  is  possible  that  the  phrase 
km.  Hovtlov  liikaiTov  came  into  R  under  the  influ- 
ence of  its  use  in  that  connection,  the  clause  as 
we  have  it  in  R  representing  merely  a  stereo- 
typed way  of  referring  to  the  crucifixion,  and 
meaning  no  more  to  the  author  than  aravpcodevra 
alone.  But  in  view  of  the  compactness  of  R 
and  also  in  view  of  the  emphatic  position  of 
the  words  eVl  Uovtlov  Hikdrov  it  is  much  more 
likely  that  those  words,  whether  known  to  the 
author  as  part  of  a  formula  of  exorcism  or  not, 
were  inserted  with  a  definite  purpose.  Both  in 
Ignatius  and  in  Justin  we  find  them  used  in 
order  to  fix  definitely  the  historic  fact  of  the 
crucifixion,  and  in  Ignatius  (Magn.  11,  Trail.  9, 
Smyrn.  1)  this  is  done  with  a  special  view  to 
the  Docetists  who  were  denying  the  reality  of 
Christ's  life  and  death.  It  is  possible  that  it 
was  for  the  same  purpose  that  the  author  of  R 
used  the  words  in  question.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  Rufinus  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  written  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century  (chap.  18),  says  that  the  phrase  sub 
Pontio  Pilato  "  means  the  time  when  these  things 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  131 

were  done  so  that  the  tradition  should  not  falter 
as  though  vague  and  uncertain." 

The  word  ra<£eVra  —  buried  —  makes  the  reality 
of  the  crucifixion  still  more  emphatic  and  renders  a 
docetic  view  of  it  still  more  impossible.  Compare 
for  instance  the  use  of  the  word  by  Peter  in  Acts 
II.  29,  in  connection  with  the  death  of  David,  and 
compare  also  Tertullian,  Be  Carne  Christi  5.  That 
the  crucifixion  was  not  a  mere  sham  or  show,  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  Christ  Jesus  was  not 
simply  crucified  but  buried.  The  fact  of  the 
burial  taken  by  itself  is  unimportant,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  a  reference  to  it  should  have 
been  inserted  in  so  compact  a  creed  as  R  if  the 
purpose  was  simply  a  positive  summary  of  the 
Christian  faith.  Outside  of  the  accounts  in 
the  gospels  the  burial  of  Christ  is  mentioned 
only  four  times  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Paul's 
speech  at  Antioch  of  Pisidia,  Acts  XIII.  29  (icade- 
\(Weg  oltto  rov  £vkov  idrjKav  €t?  fjLVT) fieiov) ,  in  Rom. 
VI.  4,  and  Col.  II.  12,  where  the  believer  is  said  to 
be  "  buried  with  Christ "  in  baptism  (crv^era^/xe^ 
or  <TWTOL(f)evTe<;  avraJ),  and  in  1  Cor.  XV.  4  (/cat 
ird^rj).  It  is  not  mentioned  in  any  other  Chris- 
tian writings  prior  to  the  time  of  the  composi- 
tion of  R  except  once  in  the  Apology  of  Aristides 
(chap.  2),  and  twice  in  the  Dialogue  of  Justin 
(chaps.  97  and  118),  in  neither  case  in  connection 
with  the  crucifixion  or  as  part  of  a  formula.     In 


132  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

the  light  of  the  few  references  to  it  in  early  Chris- 
tian literature  its  occurrence  in  R  is  very  striking. 
It  might  perhaps  be  thought  that  Paul's  allusion 
to  it  in  1  Cor.  XV.  4,  in  his  brief  summary  of  the 
faith  handed  down  to  him,  accounts  for  its  inser- 
tion in  R.  But  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Paul 
connects  it  with  diredavev,  not  with  icrravpcodr), 
and  moreover  that  he  says  much  more  which  R 
omits  (Xpicrro?  airiOavev  virep  tmv  dfxapTLcop  rjfjLcov 
Kara  ret?  ypa(f)d<;  .  .  .  koI  otl  iyrjyeprai  [iyeipoy 
instead  of  the  dvicmqixi  of  R]  rfj  rjfxepa  rrj  rpLTrj 
Kara  ras  ypacjxis,  Kal  otl  oj(f)0rj  K.r)(f>a  /c.r.A.), 
while  he  omits  the  crucifixion  and  ascension 
which  are  found  in  R.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  hardly  possible  that  ra^ivra  occurs 
in  R  because  the  author  was  following  1  Cor. 
XV.  4.  On  the  contrary,  the  use  of  the  word 
can  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  only  on  the 
assumption  of  an  anti-docetic  interest. 

The  article  on  the  resurrection  appears  in  the 
form  it  has  in  R  nowhere  else  prior  to  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol.  The  nearest 
approach  to  it  is  in  Justin,  Dial  51,  76,  and  100, 
where  we  have  rfj  rpiTTj  rjfxepa  dvao-rdvra,  without 
e/c  veKpoiv. 

The  phrase  rfj  rpirrj  rjfiepa  (or  rrj  rjfiepa  Trj 
Tpirrj,  as  it  is  in  Luke  XVIII.  33  and  1  Cor. 
XV.  4)  occurs  three  times  in  Matthew  with  iyeCpco, 
twice  in  Luke  with  dvCcmffu  (once  possibly  with 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  133 

iyeipco),  once  in  Acts  and  once  in  1  Corinthians, 
both  times  with  iyeipoj.  In  Mark  we  have  uni- 
formly fxera  rpet?  rjixepas,  in  each  case  with  av 
lo-TrjfjLi.  Though  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is 
referred  to  very  frequently,  the  "  third  day  "  is 
not  mentioned  elsewhere  in  Christian  literature 
prior  to  R  except  in  Justin's  Dialogue,  where  it 
occurs  five  times,  always  with  avi(Tr7]pLi  {Dial.  51, 
76,  97,  100,  107).  The  phrase  in  the  form  /xera 
rpels  rjfjiepas  was  probably  used  originally  to 
emphasize  the  brevity  of  the  time  between  Christ's 
death  and  resurrection  (cf.  my  Apostolic  Age, 
p.  37,  note),  but  outside  of  the  gospels  it  appears 
simply  as  a  stereotyped  phrase,  with  no  special 
significance,  except  in  Justin's  Dialogue,  (chap. 
107),  where  it  is  connected  with  the  "three 
days"  of  Jonah;  and  perhaps  Paul  had  this 
in  mind  when  he  said  /caret  rets  ypacfxis  (1  Cor. 
XV.  4). 

In  the  light  of  its  use  in  early  Christian  liter- 
ature it  is  evident  that  the  phrase  may  have  been 
used  in  R  simply  as  part  of  a  stereotyped  formula, 
without  any  special  meaning  attaching  to  it,  but 
in  view  of  the  same  considerations  that  were 
urged  in  connection  with  eVi  Uovtlov  Tiikdrov  (the 
compactness  of  R,  and  the  emphatic  position  of 
the  phrase  in  question),  it  seems  probable  that  the 
author  inserted  the  words  with  the  definite  pur- 
pose of  making  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  more 


134  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

real  by  stating  precisely  the  time  at  which  it 
occurred.  Not  merely  did  Christ  rise  at  some  in- 
definite time,  but  "  on  the  third  day."  The  refer- 
ence was  very  likely  intended  also  to  carry  with  it 
the  acceptance  of  the  account  in  the  Gospels  and 
so  the  repudiation  of  the  idea  of  a  mere  spiritual 
resurrection. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  interval  of 
three  days  was  mentioned  in  order  to  make  cer- 
tain the  reality  of  the  death  of  Christ  by  ex- 
cluding the  supposition  of  a  mere  swoon  or 
trance ;  but  so  far  as  I  am  aware  the  phrase  was 
never  used  in  the  early  church  to  emphasize 
length  of  time,  and  there  is  no  sign  of  such  a 
use  of  it  here. 

The  resurrection  is  referred  to  in  primitive 
Christian  literature  both  within  and  without  the 
New  Testament  either  by  the  single  word  avicrrT)^ 
or  iyeCpco,  or  by  the  full  phrase  avia-riqixi  (or  iyeipa)) 
Ik  veKpcov  (less  often  oltto  tmv  veKpuv),  and  appar- 
ently without  any  difference  in  meaning  or  empha- 
sis (cf.,  e.  g.,  Ignatius,  Trail.  9  and  Smyrn.  2). 
The  words  Ik  veKpuv  in  R,  therefore,  are  perhaps 
without  any  special  significance,  the  phrase  aj/a- 
o-rdvra  4k  vtKp&v  meaning  no  more  than  avacrravTa 
alone.  At  the  same  time  it  is  possible  that  the 
author  added  them  purposely  in  order  to  render 
still  more  emphatic  the  reality  of  the  resurrection. 
It  was  not  that  Christ  Jesus  appeared  to  his  dis- 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  135 

ciples  out  of  heaven,  whither  he  had  gone  after 
his  crucifixion,  but  that  he  actually  arose  from  the 
realm  of  the  dead. 

In  view  of  the  emphasis  which  was  apparently 
laid  by  the  author  of  R  not  upon  the  significance 
and  value,  but  upon  the  reality  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  it  would  seem  that  he  must 
have  had  in  mind  the  denial  of  their  reality,  and 
felt  the  need  of  meeting  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
there  were  many  docetists  in  his  day  who  believed 
that  Christ  had  neither  died  nor  risen  again. 
Ignatius  in  his  opposition  to  such  docetists  some 
decades  earlier  found  himself  obliged  to  lay  stress 
upon  the  truth  both  of  the  death  and  of  the  resur- 
rection. Thus  in  Trail.  9  he  says :  "  Be  ye  deaf 
therefore  when  any  man  speaketh  unto  you  apart 
from  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  of  the  race  of  David, 
who  was  son  of  Mary,  who  was  truly  born,  ate  and 
drank,  was  truly  persecuted  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
was  truly  crucified  and  died,  in  the  sight  of  those 
in  heaven  and  on  earth  and  under  the  earth ;  who 
also  was  truly  raised  from  the  dead,  his  father 
having  raised  him ;  who  in  like  manner  will  also 
raise  us  who  believe  on  him ; "  and  still  more 
clearly  in  Smyrn.  2  :  "  For  he  suffered  all  these 
things  for  our  sakes  ;  and  he  suffered  truly,  as 
also  he  raised  himself  truly  ;  not  as  certain  unbe- 
lievers say  that  he  suffered  in  semblance,  being 
themselves    semblance.     And   according   as   their 


136  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

opinions  are,  so  shall  it  happen  to  them,  for  they 
are  without  body  and  demon  like." 

Marcion,  strangely  enough  in  view  of  his  docet- 
ism,  did  not  question  the  fact  of  Christ's  death. 
On   the  contrary  he  followed  Paul  in  accepting 
it,    as   also   the   resurrection    of    Christ   and   his 
subsequent  appearances  to  his  disciples  (cf.  Ter- 
tullian,  Adv.  Marc,  I.  11;  II.  27,  28;  III.  11,  19, 
23  ;  IV.  41  seq.)     At  the  same  time  his  docetism 
was  such  that  it  was  felt  by  his  opponents,  or  at 
any  rate  by  Tertullian,  that  he  could  not  truly 
believe  in  the  death  and  resurrection,  that  he  could 
not  look  upon  either  event  as  actually  real. 
And  so  Tertullian  frequently  represents    Marcion 
as    holding    that    Christ    died    and    rose    again 
only  in  appearance,  and  he  thinks  it  necessary  to 
insist  over  against  him  upon  the  reality  not  only 
of  Christ's  birth  and  of  his  human  flesh,  but  also 
of  his  death  and  resurrection  (cf.  Adv.  Marc,  II.  27; 
III.  8,  11,  19;  IV.  21,  42,  43;  V.  5,  7,  20;  and 
De  Came  Ckrisli,  5).     It  is  possible  that  the  same 
consideration  led  the  author  of  R  to  assert  that 
Christ  Jesus,  the  son  of  the  creator  and  ruler  of 
the  universe  (cf.  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  III.  19, 
23),  was  crucified  and  buried  and  rose  again.     Or 
it  may  be  that  it  was  popularly  supposed,  or  taken 
for  granted  at  the  time  R  was  written,  that  Marcion 
denied  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  alto- 
gether; as  so  many  docetists  were  doing;  and  it 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  137 

may  be  that  the  author  of  R  shared  the  supposition, 
for  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  he  had  read 
the  Antitheses,  as  Tertullian  had.  The  symbol  in 
this  as  in  other  parts  was  probably  framed,  not  in 
the  light  of  a  careful  study  of  Marcion's  system, 
but  only  under  the  influence  of  the  popular  concep- 
tion of  his  views.  In  any  case,  whether  or  not  the 
author  was  aware,  as  Tertullian  was,  of  Marcion's 
inconsistent  acceptance  of  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, the  assertion  that  Christ  was  crucified  and 
buried  and  rose  again,  was  most  natural,  indeed 
we  may  fairly  say  indispensable  in  an  anti- 
Marcionitic   creed. 

' AvafiavTa  €is  tovs  ovpavovs. 

References  to  the  ascension  are  not  so  common 
in  early  Christian  literature  as  to  justify  the  expec- 
tation that  it  must  inevitably  be  mentioned  in  a 
Christian  creed  of  the  second  century.  The  exal- 
tation of  Christ  to  the  right  hand  of  God  formed 
an  important  part  of  the  earliest  Christian  tra- 
dition, and  of  course  the  exaltation  presupposes 
the  ascension,  but  the  special  mention  of  the  latter 
is  rare.  It  is  possible  that  in  the  original  form 
of  the  gospel  tradition  the  ascension  was  not 
reported  at  all,  and  that  a  final  departure  of 
Christ  from  his  disciples,  such  as  is  recorded  in 
Acts  I.  9,  was  marked  off  from  his  many  sudden 
departures  only  after  reflection  upon  his  exaltation 
and  second  coming  (cf.  my  Apostolic  Age,  p.  39). 


138  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

The  ascension  is  referred  to  rarely  in  the  New 
Testament  (in  Mark  XVI.  19,  Acts  I.  2,  9,  and  in 
some  manuscripts  of  Luke  XXIV.  51 ;  cf.  also 
John  VI.  62,  XX.  17;  Eph.  IV.  8;  I.  Tim.  III. 
16),  only  once  in  the  Apostolic  fathers  (Barnabas 
15),  once  in  Aristides  (Apol.,  2),  and  a  number 
of  times  in  Justin  (Apol.,  I.  26,  31,  42,  45,  46, 
50,  51,  54;  Dial,  17,  32,  34,  36,  38,  39,  68, 
82,  85,  132).  While  the  ascension  is  thus  men- 
tioned frequently  in  Justin,  the  four  items  which 
occur  in  R  (Resurrection,  Ascension,  Session,  and 
Second  coming)  are  not  once  found  together  in 
Justin,  or  in  any  other  writer  prior  to  R.  Resur- 
rection, ascension  and  session  are  found  in  Justin, 
Dial,  36  (cf.  also  Apol.,  42  and  45) ;  resurrection, 
ascension,  and  second  coming  in  Justin,  Dial.,  136  ; 
resurrection  and  ascension  in  Barnabas  15,  Aris- 
tides 2,  and  Justin,  Apol.,  31,  46,  50;  Dial. ,11, 
32,  68,  82,  85 ;  ascension  and  second  coming  in 
Justin,  Dial.,  34. 

It  is  worth  noticing  in  this  connection,  as  indi- 
cating how  slowly  the  tradition  of  the  ascension 
became  fixed,  that  the  word  for  ascension  varies 
greatly  in  the  passages  where  the  fact  is  referred 
to  (avakafjifidvcQ,  avcufrepco,  erraipa),  dydyco,  dvirjfjLi, 
dvafiaivo)  in  Barnabas  and  three  times  in  Justin, 
and  oftenest  of  all  in  Justin  dvep^opiai),  and 
that  there  was  no  certainty  in  the  second  cen- 
tury as  to  the  length  of  time  that  had  elapsed 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  139 

between  the  resurrection  and  ascension,  some 
placing  the  ascension  on  the  day  of  the  resurrec- 
tion (Barnabas  15),  some  forty  days  later  (Acts 
I.  9),  some  many  months  and  even  ten  years 
later  (the  Valentinians,  Ophites  and  other  Gnostics, 
see  Harnack  in  Hahn,  p.  382). 

In  view  of  the  facts  referred  to  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  mention  of  the  ascension  in  R, 
while  conceivably  due  to  a  mere  desire  to 
state  in  detail  the  most  important  events  in 
Christ's  career,  was  more  probably  the  result  of 
some  special  interest,  and  that  interest  was  very 
likely  identical  with  that  which  controlled  the 
earlier  part  of  the  creed ;  for,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  crucifixion,  burial,  and  resurrection,  the 
reference  to  the  ascension,  which  doubtless  im- 
plies a  literal,  visible  phenomenon  as  in  Acts  I.  9, 
may  well  have  been  due  to  the  Marcionitic  view 
that  the  Christ  Jesus  who  ascended  to  heaven 
was  a  mere  spiritual  being  without  a  real  human 
body.  It  also  serves,  whether  the  author  intended 
it  or  not,  to  make  it  impossible  to  interpret "  cruci- 
fied and  buried "  as  referring  only  to  the  man 
Jesus  as  distinguished  from  the  spiritual  aeon 
Christ,  which  was  supposed  by  many  docetists  to 
have  ascended  to  heaven  directly  from  the  cross, 
leaving  the  man  Jesus  to  die  and  be  buried. 

KadTJjAevov  Iv  8e£ua  rov  iraTpos. 

Christ's  session  at  the  right  hand  of  God   is 


140  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

referred  to  very  frequently  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  a  few  times  in  post-canonical  literature  prior 
to  K  (e.  g.,  in  1  Clement  36  ;  Polycarp  2  ;  Justin, 
Apol.,  45,  and  Dial.,  32,  36.  Compare  also  Apol., 
42,  where  it  is  said  "  Our  Jesus  Christ,  being  cru- 
cified and  dead,  rose  again,  and  having  ascended 
to  heaven,  reigned").  The  phrase  commonly  used 
is  eV  Sefia  (or  e/c  he&uv  as  in  Psalm  110)  rov  0eov 
(in  Matthew  XXVI.  64  and  parallels  (Wa/iews). 
The  words  of  R,  eV  Sefia  tov  Trarpos,  occur  no- 
where else  in  Christian  literature  prior  to  R, 
except  in  Justin,  Dial.,  36.  The  phrase,  which 
came  from  Psalm  110  (cf.  Acts  II.  33  seq.;  Heb. 
I.  13 ;  Justin,  Dial,  36  ;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc. 
IV.  41,  42)  was  used  to  express  the  glory  and 
especially  the  power  of  the  exalted  Christ.  His 
victory  over  his  enemies,  the  demons,  is  the  fact 
which  Justin  emphasizes  in  Apol.  45,  Dial.  32 
and  36. 

While  the  Session  is  not  mentioned  frequently 
in  early  Christian  literature  outside  of  the  New 
Testament  its  repeated  occurrence  there  would 
make  its  insertion  in  a  Christian  creed  of  the 
second  century  quite  natural,  whether  the  desire 
was  simply  to  state  the  most  important  events  in 
Christ's  career,  or  to  emphasize  his  exaltation  and 
dignity  and  power  over  against  heathen  and  unbe- 
lievers. At  the  same  time,  it  too  is  entirely  in 
place  in  an  anti-Marcionitic  creed  and  has  spec- 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  141 

ial  significance  in  such  a  creed.  It  is  not  to  be 
taken  by  itself,  but  in  connection  with  the  article 
on  the  judgment  which  immediately  follows,  and 
for  which  it  prepares  the  way.  It  is  not  simply 
that  Christ  ascended  into  heaven  and  will  come 
thence  to  judge  men,  but  that  he  is  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father  —  the  same  God  referred  to  in 
the  first  article  —  at  once  father  of  the  universe 
and  father  of  Christ  (the  words  tov  irarpos  here 
having  a  definiteness  of  meaning  that  tov  Oeov 
would  lack),  and  that  it  is  from  his  right  hand, 
that  is  with  his  commission  and  by  his  authority, 
that  he  will  come  as  judge.  The  reference  to  the 
Session  thus  makes  the  matter  much  more  definite 
than  it  would  otherwise  be  and  prevents  any  quib- 
bling on  the  part  of  Marcion  and  his  followers 
touching  the  relation  between  Christ  and  the  crea- 
tor and  ruler  of  the  universe  after  the  close  of 
Christ's  earthly  career,  as  the  first  and  second  arti- 
cle made  impossible  any  doubt  touching  his  origin. 

The  use  of  an  expression  taken  from  the  Old 
Testament  is  also  significant,  for  it  emphasizes 
again,  in  passing,  the  identity  between  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament  —  the  creator  and  ruler  of  the 
world  —  and  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ. 

*O0ev  ip-^erai  Kplvai  £oWa9  koX  veKpovs. 

The  article  on  the  judgment  is  found  in  this 
exact  form  nowhere  else  before  IrenaBus,  though 
we   have    language   very   closely   approaching   it 


142  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

(see  above,  p.  98).  The  phrase  £o>i>t€$  koX  veKpoi 
occurs  frequently  in  early  Christian  literature  in 
connection  with  the  judgment :  for  instance  in 
Acts  X.  42;  2  Tim.  IV.  1;  1  Peter  IV.  5 ;  2 
Clement  1 ;  Barnabas  7 ;  Polycarp  2 ;  Justin, 
Dial,  118. 

The  belief  that  Christ  would  come  again  to 
judge  the  world  was  very  common  in  the  church 
from  an  early  day  (cf.,  e.  g.,  Matt.  XXV.  31  seq.,  2 
Tim.  IV.  1,  Jude  14,  Barnabas  15,  Polycarp  2, 
Justin,  Dial,  31,  36,  49,  132).  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  judge,  without  any  explicit  reference  to  his 
second  coming,  which  however  may  be  regarded 
as  always  assumed,  in  many  other  passages,  thus 
in  John  V.  22  seq.,  Acts  X.  42,  XVII.  31,  Rom.  II. 

16,  Barnabas  5,  7,  Polycarp  6,  2  Clement  1,  Justin, 
Apol  53,  Dial,  46,  47,  58,  118.  On  the  other 
hand,  God  is  spoken  of  as  judge  in  a  number  of 
passages,  for  instance  in  Rom.  III.  6 ;  1  Peter  I. 

17,  IV.  5;  Justin,  Dial,  141.  The  two  concep- 
tions are  not  inconsistent,  for  Christ  was  thought 
of  as  the  agent  of  God  in  executing  judgment, 
and  so  the  judgment  might  be  spoken  of  indiffer- 
ently as  God's  or  Christ's.  Compare  Acts  XVII. 
31,  Rom.  II.  16,  and  Justin,  Dial.  58  ("  the  judg- 
ment which  God  the  maker  of  all  things  shall 
hold  through  my  Lord  Jesus  Christ "),  where  the 
relation  between  God  and  Christ  in  the  act  of 
judging  is  brought  out  very  clearly. 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  143 

Other  purposes  than  the  judgment  are  often 
connected  with  the  second  coming  of  Christ  in 
early  Christian  literature :  thus  for  example  Christ 
comes  to  save  (1  Thess.  I.  10,  2  Clement  17) ;  to 
save  and  condemn  (Justin,  Apol.,  52 ;  Dial.,  35,  45, 
121) ;  to  reward  men  according  to  their  works  (Matt. 
XYI.  27  ;  Barnabas  21) ;  to  condemn  the  wicked 
(2  Thess.  I.  7  ;  Justin,  Dial.,  39) ;  to  receive  or 
establish  a  kingdom  (2  Clement  17 ;  Justin,  Dial., 
39).  The  second  coming  is  also  spoken  of  fre- 
quently without  any  indication  of  its  purpose, 
for  instance  in  Matt.  XXIV.  30,  XXVI.  64  and 
parallels;  Mark  VIII.  38;  Acts  I.  11 ;  1  Cor. 
XV.  23;  1  Thess.  II.  19,  III.  13,  IV.  15  seq.,  V. 
23  ;  2  Thess.  II.  1,  8 ;  Jas.  V.  7 ;  2  Peter  III.  4  ; 
1  John  II.  28  ;  Didache,  16  ;  Justin,  Apol.,  51 ; 
Dial.,  14,  34,  54,  83,  etc.  It  is  evident  therefore 
that  the  allusion  to  the  judgment  in  the  present 
article  is  intentional,  and  that  we  are  not  to  in- 
terpret it  simply  as  part  of  a  traditional  formula 
relating  to  the  parousia.  It  is  not  that  the 
author  refers  simply  to  Christ's  second  coming, 
but  that  he  refers  to  the  coming  for  judgment, 
the  purpose  being  indicated  as  well  as  the  act 
itself.  This  is  a  very  significant  fact,  for  in  no 
other  article  of  the  creed  is  there  a  reference  to 
purpose  of  any  kind.  Why  then  have  we  such  a 
reference  here  ?  It  might  be  thought  that  the 
practical  importance  of  the  belief  in  a  judgment 


144  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

led  to  its  inclusion.  It  is  true  that  the  judgment 
is  made  much  of  by  nearly  all  early  Christian 
writers,  but  why  should  this  single  practical  truth 
be  mentioned  in  R  and  no  other  ?  Why  is  there 
no  reference  to  faith,  to  love,  to  good  works,  to 
conduct  of  any  kind,  to  the  law  of  Christ,  to  sal- 
vation by  him,  to  heaven  and  hell  ?  Evidently  the 
author  of  the  creed  was  not  concerned  with  prac- 
tical truths  as  such,  and  it  is  impossible,  unless  we 
attribute  to  him  a  degree  of  carelessness  and  loose- 
ness of  thought  which  the  structure  of  the  creed 
as  a  whole  by  no  means  justifies,  to  suppose  that 
this  single  article  was  inserted  with  a  practical 
purpose. 

Again  it  might  be  suggested  that  the  author 
refers  to  the  judgment  simply  to  increase  the  em- 
phasis upon  the  majesty  and  authority  of  Christ 
over  against  heathen  and  unbelievers.  Not  that 
he  is  interested  in  the  judgment  as  such,  but  in 
the  fact  that  Christ  is  judge.  This  is  a  possible 
explanation,  but  if  this  were  the  author's  design 
he  might  fairly  have  been  expected  to  add  a  refer- 
ence to  the  glory  in  which  Christ  should  return, 
or  to  the  fact  that  he  was  to  rule  the  world.  Ref- 
erences of  this  kind  are  very  numerous  both  within 
and  without  the  New  Testament  in  connection 
with  the  second  coming,  and  especially  the  fact 
that  he  was  to  come  as  a  king,  and  reign  over  all, 
would  have  met  the  author's  purpose  capitally. 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  145 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  creed  was  anti-Mar- 
cionitic  in  interest  and  purpose,  there  was  the 
best  reason  in  the  world  for  the  insertion  of  an 
article  on  the  judgment  and  in  exactly  the  form 
which  we  have  in  R.  Marcion,  as  we  learn  from 
many  passages  in  Tertullian's  work  against  him 
{Adv.  Marc,  I.  26,  27;  IV.  8,  15,  17,  19,  21,  23, 
24,  29,  35  seq.;  V.  4,  7,  8,  13,  16),  denied  that 
Jesus  Christ,  or  his  Father  —  a  God  of  pure  love 
and  mercy  —  would  execute  judgment.  And  Ter- 
tullian  regards  the  denial  as  so  serious  that  he 
argues  the  question  at  great  length.  It  is  evi- 
dent from  his  attitude  in  the  matter  that  an 
article  upon  the  judgment  could  not  well  be  want- 
ing in  an  anti-Marcionitic  creed.  The  article  in 
R  with  its  assertion  not  simply  that  there  will  be 
a  judgment,  but  that  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  now 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  will  come  from 
thence,  that  is  with  the  Father's  authority  and  as 
his  agent,  to  judge  all  men,  repudiates  the  position 
of  Marcion  in  the  most  definite  and  thoroughgoing 
way. 

Kgu  €t?  TTvevfJLa  ayiov. 

Ilz/eu/ia  ayiov  is  the  reading  of  the  Psalterium 
^Ethelstani  and  is  to  be  preferred  to  Marcellus'  to 
ayiov  TTvevixa,  because  in  all  the  Latin  texts  of  R  we 
have  the  order  Spiritum  Sanctum  (see  above,  p.  43). 
In  the  New  Testament  and  early  Christian  liter- 
ature the  form  varies  between  irveuyia  ayiov,  to 

10 


146  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

Trvevfia  to  ayiov,  and  to  ayiov  7rvevjjia.  The  first 
is  most  common,  the  third  least  so,  but  the  three 
are  used  indifferently  by  the  same  writers,  with- 
out any  distinction  of  meaning.  In  the  baptismal 
formula  of  Matthew  and  the  Didache,  and  in  the 
benediction  of  2  Cor.  XIII.  13,  we  have  to  ayiov 
7rv€vfjiay  but  in  the  baptismal  formula  of  Justin 
Martyr  (Apol.,  61)  irvevfjia  ayiov  occurs. 

The  Spirit  was  called  ayiov  to  indicate  its  con- 
nection with  God,  and  to  distinguish  it  from 
human  and  other  spirits.  The  word  does  not 
signify  primarily  pure  or  holy  in  an  ethical 
sense,  but  reverend  or  worthy  of  veneration  and 
so  belonging  to  God,  divine,  heavenly.  The  Holy 
Spirit  was  referred  to  in  early  Christian  literature, 
with  no  suggestion  of  a  difference  in  meaning, 
as  7rvevfJia  ayiov,  7rvevfxa  0eov,  TrvevjJLa  TrpocfrrjTiKov, 
etc.,  or  nvevfia  alone.  Compare  for  instance  the 
three  parallel  passages :  Matt.  III.  16  (rrvevfxa 
Oeov),  Mark  I.  10  (to  nvevfjia),  and  Luke  III.  22  (to 
7rv€Vfjia  to  ayiov).  In  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
though  the  Spirit  is  referred  to  four  times,  the 
phrase  "  Holy  Spirit "  does  not  occur.  In  the 
epistles  of  Paul  it  occurs  twelve  times  out  of 
some  ninety  references  to  the  Spirit  ;  in  the 
remainder  of  the  New  Testament  frequently ;  in 
1  Clement  eight  times  out  of  ten  ;  in  Ignatius 
three  times  out  of  ten ;  in  the  Didache  twice 
out  of  seven  times  ;    in  the  Martyrdom  of  Poly- 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  147 

carp  three  times,  in  Hermas  and  Justin  very 
often.  That  we  have  in  R  the  phrase  irvev^a  ayiov 
instead  of  nvevfia  alone,  or  Trvevfia  0eov,  or  some 
similar  phrase,  is  doubtless  due  simply  to  the  fact 
that  that  particular  phrase  was  in  the  baptismal 
formula  upon  which  R  was  based.  The  author  of 
R  was  evidently  interested  not  to  make  any 
special  statements  about  the  Spirit  or  to  emphasize 
his  character  and  nature,  but  merely  to  reproduce 
the  reference  in  the  formula,  and  if  the  latter  had 
said  TTvevfJLa  Oeov,  or  irvevixa  XpicrTov,  or  wvevfjia 
7rpo(f>7jTLK6v,  or  TTvevfJLa  alone,  we  should  doubtless 
have  had  the  same  expression  in  R. 

The  lack  of  qualifying  phrases  and  of  references 
to  character,  nature,  and  activity  in  connection 
with  the  article  on  the  Spirit  is  very  significant. 
It  is  evident  that  there  was  no  special  reason  for 
the  mention  of  the  Spirit  in  R,  as  there  was  for 
the  mention  of  God  and  of  Christ,  beyond  the 
fact  that  it  had  a  place  in  the  baptismal  formula 
upon  which  the  creed  was  based.  (Upon  the 
reason  for  the  reference  to  the  Spirit  in  the  bap- 
tismal formula,  see  below,  p.  183).  But  this  fact 
throws  light  upon  the  purpose  of  the  creed  as  a 
whole.  If  its  purpose  had  been  to  give  general 
expression  to  the  faith  of  the  church,  or  to  expound 
the  baptismal  formula  in  all  its  parts,  more  must 
have  been  said  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is 
true  that  there  was  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  nature 


148  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

of  the  Spirit  and  his  relation  to  God  and  Christ,  but 
his  activity  was  universally  recognized,  and  the 
literature  of  the  period  shows  that  the  Christians 
of  the  day  had  enough  to  say  on  the  subject.  The 
only  reasonable  explanation  of  the  silence  of  R  is 
that  the  author  was  concerned  to  state  the  com- 
mon faith  of  the  church  only  in  so  far  as  it  had 
been  impugned,  and  as  there  was  no  heresy  abroad 
touching  the  Holy  Spirit  —  as  every  Christian 
believed  in  him  —  it  was  unnecessary  to  say  any- 
thing upon  the  subject.  Had  the  creed  not  been 
based  upon  the  baptismal  formula  probably  the 
Spirit  would  not  have  been  mentioned  at  all.  As 
it  was,  the  formula  was  reproduced,  but  expounded 
only  in  so  far  as  the  spread  of  false  teaching  made 
necessary. 

The  conception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  received 
by  the  Christians  from  the  Jews.  It  originated 
among  the  latter  and  was  one  of  the  consequences 
of  the  effort  to  find  some  means  of  communication 
between  the  transcendent  God  and  the  universe. 
The  distance  and  separation  of  God  from  the 
world  were  increasingly  emphasized  by  post-exilic 
Judaism,  and  the  emphasis  led  to  the  need  of 
intermediate  beings  or  forces  or  principles.  At 
the  time  of  Christ  the  conception  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  was  not  thought  of  as  an  independent 
personality,  but  as  the  power  of  God  working 
especially  in   inspiration  and   salvation,  was  the 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  149 

general  possession  of  the  Jews,  and  whenever  the 
divine  activity,  inspiring  and  saving  men,  was 
thought  of,  it  was  common  to  use  the  term  Holy 
Spirit  or  Spirit  of  God.  And  so  the  prophecy  of 
Joel,  that  in  the  last  times  God  would  pour  out  of 
his  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  meant  that  the  enlighten- 
ing and  saving  influence  of  God  would  be  felt  as 
it  had  not  been  before.  The  conception  of  the 
Spirit  passed  over  into  the  Christian  church,  and 
it  was  believed  by  all  Christians,  whether  they 
shared  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  divine  tran- 
scendence or  not,  that  the  Spirit  was  now  especially 
active  ;  that  the  age  in  which  they  lived,  the  age 
which  the  prophets  had  foretold,  was  the  age  of 
the  Spirit  in  an  especial  degree,  which  meant  sim- 
ply that  it  was  an  age  of  peculiar  and  immediate 
divine  activity,  inspiring,  enlightening,  blessing, 
saving.  The  early  Christians  did  not  speculate 
touching  the  nature  of  the  Spirit  and  his  relation 
to  God  and  to  Christ,  but  when  they  spoke  of 
the  Spirit  they  meant  commonly,  not  a  special 
person  or  hypostasis,  but  the  divine  power  work- 
ing in  the  world,  or  among  men,  or  especially 
within  the  Christian  church,  the  peculiar  sphere  of 
his  activity.  Paul  frequently  uses  the  terms  God, 
Christ,  and  Spirit  interchangeably.  Evidently  the 
term  Spirit  meant  to  him  the  spiritual  nature  of 
God,  which  could  be  separated  from  God  of  course 
only  in  thought.     In  that  spiritual  nature  Christ 


150  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

also  shared,  and  so  he  too  could  be  spoken  of  as 
Spirit. 

Most  of  the  early  Christian  writers  who  refer  to 
the  Spirit  leave  us  quite  in  the  dark  as  to  their 
conception  of  his  relation  to  God  and  to  Christ. 
Hennas  of  Rome  is  the  first  of  the  fathers  to 
attempt  to  define  the  matter,  and  he  represents 
the  Spirit  as  the  son  of  God  (S.,  IX.  1),  and  says 
that  God  "  made  the  Holy  pre-existent  Spirit, 
which  created  the  whole  creation,  to  dwell  in  flesh 
which  he  desired "  (S.,  V.  6) ;  so  that  Christ  was 
thought  of  by  him  as  a  man  in  whom  the  Spirit 
of  God  dwelt,  setting  him  apart  from  and  raising 
him  above  all  other  men,  and  making  him  Saviour 
and  Lord. 

The  Holy  Spirit  among  the  Jews  represented 
an  interest  somewhat  similar  to  that  which  led  to 
the  Logos  conception  among  the  Greeks ;  and  in 
Justin  Martyr,  who  made  large  use  of  the  Logos 
conception,  we  find  considerable  confusion  as  to  the 
relation  between  the  Logos  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Justin  distinctly  says  that  the  Logos,  or  Son  of  God, 
and  the  Spirit  are  the  same  (ApoL,  33 ;  so  also 
Theophilus,  II.  10 ;  and  compare  Justin,  ApoL,  36, 
where  the  Logos  is  represented  as  inspiring  the 
prophets,  a  function  commonly  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit,  e.  g.,  ibid.,  38,  39,  etc.);  and  yet  under 
the  influence  of  Christian  tradition,  which  spoke 
of  God   and  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  for 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  151 

instance  in  the  baptismal  formula,  Justin  found  it 
necessary  to  distinguish  between  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  as  the  former  was  the  Son  of 
God,  and  so  the  incarnate  Logos,  he  had  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  Spirit  and  the  Logos;  but 
what  the  distinction  was  he  could  not  say  and  the 
result  was  serious  confusion.  Had  it  not  been 
for  the  threefold  baptismal  formula,  the  church 
would  possibly  have  contented  itself  with  a  dual- 
ity: God  the  Father  and  the  Logos,  or  Spirit, 
or  Son  of  God,  who  became  incarnate  in  Christ. 
It  is  significant  that  in  R  we  have  neither  the 
dual  conception,  which  identifies  the  Spirit  with 
the  Son  of  God  incarnate  in  Christ,  nor  the  trinal 
conception,  which  distinguishes  the  two  and  makes 
two  divine  hypostases  in  addition  to  God  the 
Father.  What  we  have  in  R  is  simply  God,  and 
his  Son,  the  historic  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
without  any  hint  of  the  relation  between  the  Spirit 
and  God  or  Christ,  without  any  hint  that  the 
author  had  thought  at  all  about  that  relationship, 
though  it  was  engaging  the  attention  of  at  least 
some  of  his  contemporaries  in  Rome.  That  he 
simply  reproduces  the  baptismal  formula  with- 
out any  suggestion  of  the  problem  involved  is 
certainly,  under  existing  circumstances,  strong  evi- 
dence of  the  exclusively  anti-heretical  or  anti- 
Marcionitic  character  of  the  creed.  So  far,  then, 
as  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  goes,  a  Christian  who 


152  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

accepted  it  might  hold  any  opinion  he  chose,  or 
might  have  no  opinion,  touching  the  relation  of 
the  Spirit  to  God  or  to  Jesus  Christ. 

Ay Cav  iKK\r](riav. 

As  shown  above,  p.  92  seq.,  these  words  very  likely 
formed  no  part  of  the  original  text  of  R,  but  were 
added  some  time  before  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  The  phrase  is  not  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  though  we  have  in  Eph.  V.  27  the 
words  "  that  he  may  present  it  to  himself  a  glori- 
ous church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any 
such  thing,  but  that  it  may  be  holy  and  without 
blemish  (dyia  koX  cfyuu/xos),"  and  in  1  Peter  II. 
5  Christians  are  spoken  of  as  "a  holy  priest- 
hood" (lepdrevixa  ayiov),  and  in  II.  9  as  "a  holy 
nation "  (ZOvos  ayiov).  The  phrase  occurs  in  the 
writings  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  only  in 
Hermas,  Vis.,  I.  1,  3  ;  in  Ignatius,  Trail.,  inscr. ; 
in  the  Martyrdom  of  Poly  carp,  inscr.  (ttjs  dyias  /cat 
KaOoXiKrjs  e/c/cX^crias) ;  in  Theophilus  II.  14 ;  in 
Apollonius,  according  to  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  V.  18  ; 
and  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom.  VII.  14 
(see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  703  seq.).  We  have  also 
Xaos  ayto?  used  of  the  Christians  in  Barnabas  14 
and  Justin,  Dial.,  119;  and  in  the  Didache,  chap. 
10,  the  church  is  spoken  of  as  sanctified  (ttjv  dyiacr- 
Oeicrav  ets  tt)v  crrjp  fiacrikeiav). 

Though  the  phrase  ayia  iKKXrjaCa  is  so  rare  in 
early  Christian  literature,  its  meaning,  if  it  formed 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  153 

a  part  of  the  original  text  of  R,  can  hardly  be 
doubtful.  The  adjective  ayios  whether  used  with 
persons  or  things,  meant  properly  not  pure  but 
sacred,  that  is,  set  apart  for  or  belonging  to  God} 
And  the  phrase  dyia  iiack'qo'ia  in  the  first  or  early 
second  century  would  naturally  express,  not  the 
ethical  purity  or  sinlessness  of  the  church  or  of 
Christians,  but  the  belief  that  the  church  was  an 
institution  founded  by  and  belonging  to  God,  not 
man.  This  conception  of  the  Christian  church  was 
common  among  Christians  from  an  early  day. 
The  church  was  thought  of  not  as  a  mere  voluntary 
association  of  disciples  of  Christ,  but  as  a  divine 
institution  established  and  sustained  by  God,  an 
institution  composed  of  men  and  women  called  and 
set  apart  by  God  to  be  his  own  elect  people.  The 
conception  that  Christian  believers  were  called  and 
set  apart  by  God  was  very  natural  on  Jewish  ground. 
For  sharing  as  the  early  Jewish  disciples  did  in  the 
ancestral  consciousness  of  belonging  to  God's  cove- 
nant people,  they  could  hardly  do  otherwise  than  see 
in  themselves,  and  in  those  who  should  become 
associated  with  them  as  followers  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  the  real  kernel  of  the  Jewish  race  and 
the  true   object   of   God's  covenant  (cf.  Acts  IT. 


1  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  early  Christians  were  commonly 
called  dyioif  not  as  sinless,  but  as  called  and  set  apart  by  God. 
Compare  for  instance  Hermas,  Vis.,  I.  1,  II.  2,  III.  8,  where  the 
sins  of  the  ayioi  are  spoken  of. 


154  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

39,  III.  25).  But  there  is  no  hint  in  our  sources 
and  it  is  altogether  unlikely  that  they  thought  of 
themselves  as  constituting  a  new  people,  or  that 
they  called  themselves  a  church  as  distinguished 
from  their  unbelieving  countrymen,  and  separated 
themselves  even  in  thought  from  the  household 
of  faith  to  which  they  belonged  by  birth.  But 
when  Christianity  passed  the  boundaries  of  the 
Jewish  people  and  made  a  home  for  itself  on  Gen- 
tile soil,  and  when  new  Christian  communities 
grew  up  divorced  entirely  from  Judaism,  the  basis 
was  given  for  the  idea  that  the  Christian  family 
constituted  the  true  Israel  of  God,  a  new  covenant 
people  taking  the  place  of  the  old  and  inheriting 
all  the  privileges  which  the  Jews  by  their  rejec- 
tion of  Christ  had  forfeited.  Compare  for  instance 
I  Clement  29,  30,  59,  64 ;  2  Clement  2 ;  Barna- 
bas 6,  13,  14;  Justin,  Dial.,  11,  24,  26,  110,  116, 
118  seq.,  130,  etc.  According  to  Hennas  the 
church  was  created  before  all  things,  and  even  the 
world  was  framed  for  its  sake  ( Vis.,  II.  4) ;  and 
a  similar  belief  is  expressed  by  his  contemporary 
the  author  of  2  Clement  (chap.  14). 

If  R  was  intended  to  be  a  general  statement  of 
the  faith  of  Christians  at  the  time  it  was  framed, 
there  would  be  nothing  strange  in  the  insertion  of 
the  article  on  the  church,  but  the  character  and 
general  purpose  of  the  creed  being  what  they  are 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  the  presence  of  the 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  155 

article.  It  might  possibly  be  explained  as  a  pro- 
test against  the  Gnostic  and  Marcionitic  denial  of 
the  holiness  of  the  church  at  large,  and  their 
assertion  that  only  a  select  few  within  the 
church  were  elected  to  salvation,  but  it  is  too 
general  in  its  form  to  lend  itself  easily  to  such 
an  interpretation. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  will  be  shown  a  little 
later,  there  are  the  best  of  reasons  for  the  inser- 
tion of  such  an  article  in  the  early  part  of  the 
third  century,  the  period  to  which  external  testi- 
mony would  lead  us  to  assign  it.  In  the  mean- 
time let  us  examine  the  next  article,  which  is 
closely  connected  with  the  article  on  the  church 
and  throws  light  back  upon  its  interpretation. 

A(f>eCTLV   OLfJLapTLCOV. 

External  testimony  is  against  the  presence  of 
this  article  in  the  original  text  of  R  (see  p.  94). 
Does  the  internal  evidence  confirm  or  contradict 
the  external  ?  And,  first,  was  there  reason  for 
the  insertion  of  such  an  article  at  the  time  the 
creed  was  framed  ? 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  is  impossible  to 
explain  the  creed  satisfactorily  as  a  general  sum- 
mary of  the  faith  of  the  church,  or  as  an  enumera- 
tion of  the  blessings  of  Christianity.  Opposition 
to  false  teaching  alone  accounts  adequately  for  the 
portion  which  we  have  already  studied.  It  is 
unlikely  therefore    that    the   present    article    was 


156  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

added  without  any  polemic  reference,  simply  as  a 
positive  statement  of  one  of  the  blessings  of  Chris- 
tianity. But  even  if  this  consideration,  drawn  from 
the  nature  of  the  creed  as  a  whole,  were  waived, 
and  it  were  assumed  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  the 
creed  was  to  enumerate  the  blessings  of  Christian- 
ity, an  examination  of  the  literature  of  the  period 
shows  that  forgiveness  of  sins  was  not  a  blessing 
which  we  might  expect  to  find  mentioned.  It  is 
true  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  constituted  an 
important  element  in  the  gospel  of  Christ;  that 
his  emphasis  was  upon  the  love  rather  than  the 
severity  of  God ;  that  he  preached  God  rather  as 
a  father  than  a  judge.  But  what  was  true  of 
Christ  was  not  true  of  the  church  of  the  second 
century. 

The  phrase  defeats  a/xapriwj>  is  very  rare  in 
early  Christian  literature.  Outside  of  the  New 
Testament,  where  it  occurs  about  a  dozen  times, 
it  is  found  before  Irenoeus  only  in  Barnabas  (six 
times),  in  Justin  Martyr  (the  same  number  of 
times),  and  in  Hermas  (only  once,  M.,  IV.  3,  3). 
But  it  is  not  simply  that  the  phrase  is  rare ;  the 
idea  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  very  little  em- 
phasized in  the  literature  of  the  second  century. 
There  is  only  one  reference  to  forgiveness  in 
Ignatius  (Phil.  8),  only  one  in  the  Didache  (XL), 
and  none  in  Poly  carp  and  2  Clement.  While 
the  love  of  God  is  occasionally  referred  to  it  is 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  157 

as  lawgiver  and  judge  that  the  early  Christians 
chiefly  think  of  him,  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  not  commonly  represented  as  one  of  the  bless- 
ings that  distinguish  Christianity  from  other  re- 
ligions. On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  ethical  rigor 
of  Christianity  that  is  chiefly  emphasized.  The 
Christian  is  judged  more  severely  than  other 
men,  not  less  so.  The  man  who  becomes  a  Chris- 
tian assumes  ethical  responsibilities  which  he  did 
not  have  before,  and  if  he  does  not  live  as  he 
should  he  can  hope  only  for  condemnation,  not 
forgiveness.  Compare  for  instance  Hennas,  Vis., 
II.  2;  M.,  IV.  1;  Sim.  V.  7 ;  2  Clement  6  seq; 
Aristides,  Apol.,  17.  Ecclesiastical  discipline  was 
accordingly  very  strict.  Serious  offenders  were 
excommunicated,  and  once  excommunicated  they 
could  not  ordinarily  be  received  back  again  into 
communion.  Compare  Heb.  VI.  4  seq.,  X.  26  seq. ; 
Hermas,  M.,  IV.  3.  It  is  true  that  there  was  gen- 
eral agreement  among  Christians  that  repentance 
and  baptism  effected  the  remission  of  a  man's  pre- 
baptismal  sins,  and  enabled  him  to  start  upon  the 
Christian  life  with  a  clean  record,  but  thenceforth  it 
was  judgment,  not  forgiveness,  which  the  Christian 
was  to  look  for,  and  it  was  the  thought  of  the 
divine  severity,  not  the  divine  mercy,  which  was 
to  control  his  life.  And  so  the  unqualified  phrase 
d<f>€o-L<;  dfxapTiojp  does  not  express  the  faith  of 
the    church   of   the   early    second   century.     One 


158  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

might  almost  say  that  its  faith  would  be  more 
accurately  expressed  by  a  denial  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  than  by  an  unqualified  assertion  of  it ! 
It  is  thus  impossible  to  explain  the  article  as 
giving  utterance  to  one  of  the  important  ele- 
ments in  the  common  belief  of  the  church  at  the 
time  of  the  composition  of  R.  Was  there  then 
any  special  reason  in  the  situation  in  which  the 
author  was  placed  when  he  wrote  the  creed 
that  would  account  for  its  insertion  ?  It  cannot 
have  been  introduced  with  an  anti-Marcionitic 
purpose,  for  one  of  the  principal  indictments 
brought  against  Marcion  by  his  opponents  was 
that  he  emphasized  the  forgiving  love  of  God  at 
the  expense  of  his  avenging  justice.  But  we  learn 
from  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias  that  the  subject 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  was  under  discussion  at 
about  the  time  R  was  composed,  the  question  as  to 
whether  there  is  forgiveness  for  post-baptismal  sins 
being  apparently  a  burning  question  then  in  Rome 
(cf .  M.,  IV.).  It  might  be  thought  that  it  was  this 
discussion  which  led  to  the  addition  of  the  article. 
But  in  the  light  of  the  writings  of  Hennas  himself, 
of  2  Clement,  and  of  Justin  Martyr,  all  of  which 
belong  to  about  this  period,  and  in  the  light  of 
the  controversy  caused  more  than  half  a  century 
later  by  the  disciplinary  laxity  of  Bishop  Callixtus, 
it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  church  of  Rome 
committed  itself  at  or  soon  after  the  middle  of  the 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  159 

second  century  to  the  advanced  position  touching 
post-baptismal  sins  which  is  involved  in  the  sweep- 
ing and  unconditioned  phrase  a<£e<xis  dfxapTLcop. 

Is  there  then  any  other  period  at  which  such 
an  article  might  naturally  have  been  added  ?  As 
already  seen,  the  article  formed  a  part  of  the  creed 
of  Cyprian  and  Novatian,  so  that  it  must  have 
been  added  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
And  as  a  matter  of  fact  in  the  early  part  of  that 
century  conditions  existed  in  Rome  which  fully 
explain  its  introduction.  One  of  the  results  of  the 
Gnostic  and  Montanistic  conflicts  was  a  radical 
change  in  the  conception  of  the  church.  Instead 
of  being  regarded  as  a  community  of  saints,  it 
was  now  thought  of  as  an  ark  of  salvation,  an  in- 
stitution containing  both  good  and  evil,  outside 
of  which  salvation  was  impossible.  Whereas, 
therefore,  the  effort  had  formerly  been  to  keep  the 
church  pure  by  excluding  permanently  all  un- 
worthy members,  the  effort  now  was  to  induce 
all  that  would  to  enter  the  church  in  order  to 
make  their  salvation  possible.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances the  old  disciplinary  rigor  was  relaxed 
and  the  church  definitely  adopted  the  principle 
that  all  post-baptismal  sins  may  be  forgiven 
after  repentance  and  suitable  penance.  Callixtus, 
Bishop  of  Rome  from  217  to  222,  first  publicly 
enunciated  the  new  principle,  in  an  edict  in  which 
he  declared  that  he  would  pardon  and  receive  back 


160  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

into  the  church  all  offenders,  except  murderers  and 
apostates.  (See  Tertullian's  De  Paenitentia  and 
De  Pudicitia  ;  and  compare  Preuschen  :  Tertullian's 
Schriften  De  Paenitentia  una1  De  Pudicitia  mit  Ruck- 
sicht  auf  die  Bussdisciplin ;  Rolffs :  Indulgenzedikt 
des  Kallistus  ;  and  Harnack :  Dogmengeschichte,  I., 
p.  331  seq.,  English  translation,  II.  108  seq.) 
His  action  caused  a  schism  in  the  church  of 
Rome  —  Hippolytus  leading  the  opposition  —  but 
the  church  sustained  him,  and  the  principle  which 
he  enunciated  was  ultimately  made  general,  so  as 
to  cover  all  sins.  This  controversy  in  Rome  sup- 
plies a  sufficient  motive  for  the  insertion  in  the 
creed  of  the  article  cu^ecris  d/xapTLcov.  The  ques- 
tion between  the  two  parties  was  not  a  question 
of  detail,  as  to  whether  more  or  fewer  sins 
should  be  regarded  as  mortal  sins,  but  a  ques- 
tion of  principle,  as  to  whether  the  church  is  a 
community  of  saints  or  an  ark  of  salvation,  as 
to  whether  therefore  the  old  disciplinary  rigor 
should  be  maintained,  and  pardon  for  flagrant 
sins  committed  after  baptism  be  refused,  or  the 
lax  principle  adopted  of  opening  even  to  serious 
offenders  the  possibility  of  readmission  to  the 
church.  Throughout  the  controversy  the  one 
party  appealed  to  the  forgiving  love,1  the  other 

1  Such  passages  as  Ex.  XXXIV.  6,  Ezek.  XVIII.  23,  XXIII. 
J 1,  Hos.  VI.  6,  Matt.  XI.  19,  XIII.  29,  Luke  VI.  36  seq.,  XV.,  Rom. 
XIV.  4, 2  Cor. II.  6  seq.,  1  Tim.  V.  10,  1  John  I.  7,  were  appealed  to 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  161 

to  the  stern  justice  of  God,  and  so  the  addition  of 
the  general  phrase  cu^ecris  dfjuapTuwi/  to  the  creed 
would  express  in  the  clearest  possible  way  the 
principles  of  the  laxer  party,  the  party  of  the 
majority,  which  prevailed  over  Hippolytus  and 
his  supporters. 

In  the  light  of  what  has  been  said  we  can 
hardly  hesitate  to  accept  the  conclusion  to  which 
the  external  testimony  also  points,  that  afacns 
dfjLapTiojv  did  not  constitute  a  part  of  the  origi- 
nal text  of  R,  but  was  added  in  the  first  half  of 
the  third  century.1  The  interpretation  of  the 
article,  if  added  then,  is  abundantly  clear,  as 
has  been  shown. 

Our  interpretation  of  the  article  on  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  throws  light  upon  the  article  on  the 

by  the  Callixtine  party.  See  Hippolytus,  Phil.  IX.  7  (12) ;  and 
Tertullian,  De  Paenitentia  8,  Be  Pudicitia  2,  7  seq.,  9  seq.,  13, 
18  seq. 

1  Attention  should  have  been  called  on  p.  94  to  the  fact  that 
the  article  on  the  remission  of  sins  is  wanting  in  the  baptismal 
interrogatories  of  the  Canones  Hippolyti  (Hahn,  §  31d  ;  cf .  Katten- 
busch,  I.  p.  320  seq.),  of  the  newly  discovered  Latin  translation  of 
the  Egyptian  Church  Order  (see  Funk  in  the  Theologische  Quartal- 
schrift,  1899,  p.  174  seq.  and  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  732  seq.),  and  of 
the  Testamentum  Jesu  Christi  (see  the  edilio  princeps  of  Rahmani, 
1899,  p.  129).  In  all  these  forms  /xovoyevrj  and  tov  Kvpiov  rjfiav  are 
also  wanting  ;  while  Aylav  iioiKTjoiav  is  lacking  in  the  first  but  present 
in  the  two  others,  and  aapKos  avaoraviv  is  found  only  in  the  second. 
It  seems  altogether  probable  that  these  texts  are  based  upon  R, 
but  as  the  date  and  place  of  composition  of  the  documents  con- 
taining them  are  very  uncertain  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  omissions  referred  to,  or  whether  they  have  any 
significance  at  all. 

11 


162  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

church.  As  already  seen,  external  testimony  is 
against  its  existence  in  the  original  text  of  the 
creed,  and  it  is  difficult  to  explain  its  purpose 
if  it  was  a  part  of  R  in  the  beginning.  But 
the  situation  in  Rome  in  the  early  third  century 
would  account  for  the  addition  of  an  article  on  the 
church  as  well  as  on  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  In 
the  primitive  period  excommunicated  offenders 
were  commonly  left  to  the  mercy  of  God,  who 
might  forgive  them  if  he  chose,  forgiveness  being 
in  the  hands  of  God,  not  of  the  church.  But  the 
changed  conception  of  the  church,  which  has  been 
referred  to,  involved  the  assumption  that  the 
church  has  the  power  to  forgive  sins.  Compare 
the  words  of  Callixtus'  edict,  "  habet  potestatem 
ecclesia  delicta  donandi "  (see  Tertullian :  De 
Pudicitia,  21,  and  Rolffs,  op.  cit.,  p.  114);  and  com- 
pare also  Cyprian's  "  remissionem  peccatorum  per 
sanctam  ecclesiam  "  (Ep.  69,  70).  Moreover,  the 
readmission  of  gross  offenders  led  naturally  to  the 
accusation  that  the  holiness  or  purity  of  the  church 
was  thus  sacrificed,  and  that  it  became  an  unholy 
institution.  Over  against  such  accusations  the 
supporters  of  the  new  conception  maintained 
that  the  church  is  a  holy  institution,  not  because 
its  members  are  holy,  but  because  it  has  the 
means  of  grace,  and  so  the  power  of  promoting 
their  holiness  and  saving  them  (cf.  Hippolytus, 
Phil.,  IX.  7  ;  Tertullian,  De  Pudicitia,  21 ;  Cyprian, 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  163 

Up.,  69).  And  so  the  conjunction  of  the  two 
phrases  dyiav  eKKkrjcriav  and  dcfrecnv  dfJLapTiojv 
must  express,  in  the  early  part  of  the  third 
century,  at  once  the  belief  that  there  is  forgive- 
ness of  sins  through  the  church,  and  the  belief 
that  the  church  is  holy  even  though  she  forgives 
sins.  The  form  in  which  the  two  articles  are 
phrased  by  Cyprian  —  remissionem  peccatorum  per 
sandam  ecclesiam  —  expresses  the  former  belief 
more  clearly,  but  lays  the  emphasis  upon  it  at 
the  expense  of  the  latter,  while  the  juxtaposition 
of  the  two  in  R  emphasizes  equally  the  holiness 
of  the  church  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  at 
least  suggests  the  connection  between  them,  which 
Cyprian,  because  of  his  controversy  with  Nova- 
tian,  was  concerned  to  emphasize  particularly. 

That  these  two  articles  were  inserted  immedi- 
ately after  "  Holy  Spirit  "  and  before  "  Resurrec- 
tion of  the  flesh,"  instead  of  being  added  at  the 
end  of  the  creed,  was  due  doubtless  in  part  to  the 
fact  that  they  belong  logically  before  the  mention 
of  the  resurrection,  and  in  part  to  the  dyiov  of  the 
article  on  the  Spirit,  with  which  dyiav  of  the  arti- 
cle on  the  church  naturally  connected  itself.1 

1  Confirmatory  evidence  of  the  conclusion  that  the  articles  on 
the  remission  of  sins  and  the  holy  church  were  added  to  R  in  the 
early  third  century  under  the  influence  of  the  controversy  touching 
the  forgiveness  of  post-baptismal  sins  may  possibly  be  found  in 
the  surprisingly  sparing  use  made  of  R  by  Hippolytus  and  Nova- 
tian. 


164  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

%apKos  avdorracriv. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  article 
constituted  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  R  (see 
above,  pp.  55,  85  seq.),  but  the  testimony  of 
Irenseus  and  Tertullian  leaves  its  place  in  the 
creed,  and  its  connection  with  what  precedes, 
somewhat  uncertain.  Thus  in  Irenseus  we  have 
it  connected  twice  with  the  return  of  Christ :  ad 
resuscitandam  omnem  carnem.  In  Tertullian  we  have 
jndicare  .  .  .  per  carnis  etiam  resiirrectionem  ( Virg. 
VeL,  1) ;  profanos  judicandos  .  .  .  facta  utriusque 
partis  resuscitations,  cum  carnis  resurrectione  (De 
Praescriptione,  13) ;  unum  deum  .  .  .  et  Christum 
Jesum  .  .  .  et  carnis  resiirrectionem  {De  Praescrip- 
tione, 36).  But  this  variety  was  doubtless  due  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  original  R  the  article  stood  by 
itself  at  the  close  of  the  creed,  and  so  could  be 
displaced,  and  brought  in  elsewhere  at  will,  with- 
out interfering  with  the  general  structure  of  the 
symbol. 

That  there  should  be  appended  to  a  three-mem- 
bered  creed,  based  upon  the  threefold  baptismal 
formula,  an  article  entirely  unrelated  to  what 
precedes,  shows  the  tremendous  importance  of 
the  article  in  the  eyes  of  the  author  of  R.  It 
would  have  been  easy  to  work  it  into  the  section 
on  Christ  (as  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  do),  and  thus 
preserve  the  symmetry  of  the  creed,  and  its  char- 
acter as  an  exposition  of  the  baptismal  formula, 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  165 

but  evidently  the  author  wished  to  give  especial 
emphasis  to  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  so 
added  it  as  a  separate  article.  This  must  be  kept 
in  mind  in  our  interpretation  of  it. 

The  phrase  crap/cos  dz/acrracrt?  is  found  nowhere 
in  Christian  literature  before  the  composition  of 
R,  except  in  Justin's  Dialogue,  chapter  80  ;  but  the 
belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  was  wide- 
spread from  an  early  day.  In  fact  the  belief  in  a 
resurrection,  which  was  practically  universal,  com- 
monly, though  not  always,  meant  among  the  early 
Christians  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh, 
that  is,  of  the  present  material  body.  This  is 
clearly  indicated  in  Rev.  XX.  4  seq. ;  1  Clement, 
24  seq. ;  2  Clement,  9,  14  ;  Hermas,  Sim.,  V.  7,  2 ; 
Ignatius,  Eph.  7,  Smyrn.  2 ;  Mart.  Pobjc.  14 ; 
Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  I.  18  seq.,  Dial.  80;  and 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  many  other 
cases  where  the  resurrection  is  referred  to  with- 
out specification  as  to  its  character,  it  is  a  fleshly 
resurrection  that  is  in  mind,  for  that  was  the 
kind  of  resurrection  that  was  believed  among 
the  Jews  as  a  preliminary  condition  of  entrance 
into  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  (Cf.  my  Apos- 
tolic Age,  p.  452  seq.)  The  twenty-fourth  chapter 
of  First  Clement  is  instructive  in  this  connection, 
for  while  Clement  does  not  speak  particularly  of 
a  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  it  is  clear  that  the 
very  term  resurrection  means  to   him   a   fleshly 


166  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

resurrection,  and  that  he  does  not  think  of  any 
other  kind.  This  is  all  the  more  significant  in 
view  of  Paul's  explicit  denial  that  the  flesh  rises 
again.  To  Paul  the  resurrection  is  a  spiritual, 
not  a  fleshly  matter  (cf.  my  Apostolic  Age,  p.  134 
seq.,  309  seq.),  and  yet  to  most  of  the  early 
Christians  the  idea  of  a  resurrection  was  so  in- 
separable from  the  idea  of  the  flesh  that  it  was 
impossible  for  them  to  understand  Paul,  and  his 
notion  of  the  resurrection  was  taken  to  be  the 
same  as  theirs.  But  there  were  some  Christians, 
who  on  one  ground  or  another  denied  the  doctrine 
and  accepted  a  spiritual  resurrection  only,  and 
whether  they  owed  their  belief  to  Paul  or  not 
they  commonly  appealed  to  his  authority  in  sup- 
port of  their  position  (cf.  my  Apostolic  Age,  p.  502). 
Chief  among  these  Christians  were  Marcion  and 
the  Gnostics.  They  were  dualists,  and  their  con- 
ception of  the  flesh  was  such  that  its  redemption 
seemed  to  them  impossible,  and  eternal  life  must 
consist  in  escape  from  it.  In  this  they  agreed 
with  Paul,  and  of  course  they  made  much  of  his 
teaching  upon  the  subject.  The  result  was  that 
the  nature  of  the  resurrection  became  a  burn- 
ing question,  and  over  against  Marcion  and  the 
Gnostics,  Christians  began  to  emphasize  the  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh,  and  to  see  in  it  one  of  the 
cornerstones  of  the  Christian  faith.  And  so 
that  which  was  commonly  implicit  in  the  begin- 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  167 

ning  became  now  explicit.  It  was  not  enough 
to  assert  a  resurrection  merely  ;  its  fleshly  char- 
acter must  be  emphasized.  This  insistence  upon 
a  fleshly  resurrection  over  against  the  denial  of  it 
was  due  not  only  to  the  feeling  on  the  part  of 
many  Christians  that  a  future  life  was  impossible 
without  a  resurrection  of  the  material  body  (cf. 
Ignatius,  Smyrn.,  2  seq.),  but  also  to  the  fear  that 
the  loss  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
present  flesh  for  judgment  would  lead  to  immoral- 
ity and  impurity  (cf.,  e.  g.?  2  Clement  9 ;  Hennas, 
Sim.,  V.  7.  2  ;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  V.  7).  It 
was  thus  regarded  as  a  very  practical  matter. 
The  importance  attaching  to  the  belief,  and  the 
hostility  of  Christians  to  the  Marcionitic  and 
Gnostic  denial  of  it,  may  be  seen  in  Tertullian's 
tracts  De  Came  Christi  (cf.  especially  chap.  1)  and 
De  Resurredione  Carnis,  and  in  his  work  against 
Marcion,  IV.  37 ;  V.  7,  9  seq.,  14,  18  seq.  ;  and  also 
in  many  passages  in  Irenaeus,  e.  g.,  II.  29  seq.,V.  I 
18,  V.  2  seq.,  11  seq.,  31  seq.  Tertullian's  work 
against  Marcion  also  shows  how  important  a  place 
the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  had  in 
Marcion's  teaching  (compare  especially  V.  19). 

In  the  light  of  what  has  been  said  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  article  crap/cos  dvda-Tacnp, 
whose  very  position  gives  it  special  emphasis,  was 
added  with  a  distinctly  polemic  purpose,  to  em- 
phasize the  resurrection  particularly  of  the  flesh, 


168  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

over  against  the  current  denial  of  it.  If  R  read 
simply  avacrracriv,  or  dvd<jra(Tiv  veKpwv,  or  4k 
veKpcov,  all  of  which  are  common  in  the  literature 
of  the  period,  or  even  avdcracnv  crw/xaro?  it  would 
be  a  different  matter  altogether.  But  the  striking 
and  unusual  phrase  crap/cog  dvda-Tacriv,  with  the 
emphasis  upon  cra/>/cos,  admits  of  only  one  explana- 
tion. Here  certainly,  if  anywhere  in  the  creed, 
the  polemic  interest  is  evident. 

It  is  significant  that  nothing  is  said  of  the 
purpose  of  the  resurrection  and  nothing  of  what 
follows  it.  Judgment,  salvation,  messianic  king- 
dom, eternal  life  —  the  last  three  are  not  men- 
tioned at  all,  and  the  first  in  another  connection 
altogether.  Nor  is  it  said  whether  all  men  rise 
or  only  the  saved.1  Evidently  it  is  not  the  pur- 
pose or  consequence  of  the  resurrection  that  the 
author  is  concerned  to  emphasize ;  nor  does  he 
speak  of  it  because  he  wants  to  enumerate  the 
blessings  of  Christianity,  for  not  resurrection, 
which  might  be  shared  by  bad  as  well  as  good, 
but  eternal  life,  which  was  the  privilege  of  the 
saved  alone,  was  the  great  blessing  brought  by 
Christ  (cf.  John,  1  Timothy,  Jude,  Didache,  2 
Clement,  Hermas,  Ignatius,  passim).     Clearly  the 

1  In  John,  Acts,  Revelation,  2  Clement,  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian, 
and  Athenagoras,  the  resurrection  of  the  bad  as  well  as  the  good  is 
explicitly  mentioned.  In  other  cases,  before  Irenaeus,  only  the 
resurrection  of  the  good  (as  in  Paul  and  Ignatius),  or  resurrection 
in  general  without  specification  of  good  or  bad,  is  referred  to. 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  169 

author  was  interested  only  to  repudiate  the  heret- 
ical and  dangerous  assertion  that  the  flesh  rises  not. 
The  original  interest  of  the  creed  in  the  resur- 
rection of  the  flesh,  as  distinguished  from  the  fact 
of  resurrection  in  general,  is  somewhat  obscured 
in  our  English  version,  which  dates  from  the  time 
of  Henry  VIII.  It  is  probable  that  the  phrase  "  res- 
urrection of  the  body  "  was  intended  to  mean  the 
same  thing  as  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  but  in 
view  of  Paul's  use  of  the  phrase  "  spiritual  body," 
the  word  "  body  "  is  less  explicit  than  the  word 
"  flesh,"  and  so  the  original  emphasis  is  in  part 
lost.  The  English  phrase  makes  it  possible  to 
interpret  the  article  in  the  Pauline  sense,  while 
the  Greek  crap/cos  avda-Taaiv  and  the  Latin  carnis 
resurrectionem  are  distinctly,  though  not  of  course 
intentionally,  anti-Pauline.1 

1  In  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  commonly  known  as  the 
Bishops'  Book,  which  was  published  in  1537,  the  article  on  the 
resurrection  is  given  in  the  following  enlarged  form  :  "I  believe 
that  at  doomsday  all  the  people  of  the  world  that  ever  was  or 
ever  shall  be  unto  that  day  shall  then  arise  in  the  selfsame  flesh 
and  body  which  they  had  while  they  lived  on  earth  "  (see  the 
volume  entitled  Formularies  of  the  Faith  put  forth  by  authority  during 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. ,  Oxford,  1825;  p.  29).  In  A  Necessary 
Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man,  commonly  known  as 
the  King's  Book,  and  published  in  1543,  the  article  reads  simply, 
"  the  resurrection  of  the  body"  (ibid.  p.  226),  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
its  first  appearance  in  this  form.  In  the  second  prayer  book  of 
Edward  VI.  (1552),  where  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  first  printed  in 
full  in  the  order  for  morning  prayer  the  article  reads  in  the  same 
way,  "  the  resurrection  of  the  body,"  and  this  form  now  appears 
both  in  the  order  for  morning  and  evening  prayers  and  in  the  cate- 


170  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

On  the  early  Christian  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh,  see  Haller  :  Lehre  von  der  Aiiferstehang 
des  Fleisches  bis  auf  Tertullian ;  Zeitschrift  fur 
Theologie  und  Kirche,  1892,  p.  274  seq. 

Looking  back  over  the  several  articles  of  the 
original  text  of  R  we  see  that  practically  the  whole 
symbol  may  be  interpreted  as  anti-Marcionitic  in 
its  purpose,  and  that  parts  of  it  can  be  satisfac- 
torily interpreted  in  no  other  way.  The  only 
words  which  cannot  be  thus  explained  are  irvevixa 
ayiov.  But  these  words  constituted  a  part  of  the 
baptismal  formula  upon  which  the  symbol  was 
based  and  so  could  not  well  be  omitted.  The  very 
fact  that  no  qualifying  or  descriptive  phrases  are 
added  goes  to  confirm  the  anti-heretical  interest 
of  the  creed  as  a  whole,  for  it  shows  that  where 
there  was  no  heresy  —  as  there  was  none  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Spirit  —  the  need  was  not  felt  of 
adding  anything  to  the  baptismal  formula. 

On  the  other  hand  not  only  can  the  whole  creed 
be  explained  as  inspired  by  hostility  to  the  views 

chism,  and  has  passed  into  common  use  among  English-speaking 
Christians.  In  the  order  for  baptism,  on  the  other  hand,  the  English 
prayer  book  retains  the  original  form,  "  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh,"  while  the  American  edition  simply  refers  to  the  creed 
without  quoting  it. 

In  Oriental  symbols,  dvda-raarip  veicpcbv,  "  resurrection  of  the 
dead,"  as  in  the  Nic?eno-Constantinopolitan  creed,  is  common,  but 
aapKos  avdaraaiv  is  found  in  the  symbols  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  of 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  of  Laodicea  (Hahn,  §§  124,  129, 
131 ;  cf.  also  §§  140  and  141). 


HISTORICAL   INTERPRETATION  171 

of  Marcion,  there  is  nothing  lacking  which  an 
anti-Marcionitic  symbol  must  necessarily  contain. 
The  only  important  Marcionitic  tenet  which  is 
not  directly  met  in  R  is  the  rejection  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  would  seem  as  if  a  declaration 
of  belief  in  the  Old  Testament  might  have  been 
inserted,  either  explicitly,  or  by  means  of  a  refer- 
ence to  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  by  Christ.  But 
a  perusal  of  Tertullian's  work  against  Marcion 
shows  that  it  was  not  the  repudiation  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  itself  that  was  the  serious  thing  in 
the  eyes  of  Marcion' s  opponents,  but  the  separa- 
tion thus  brought  about  between  Christ  and  the 
creator  and  ruler  of  the  universe.  And  so  R, 
with  its  emphasis  upon  the  fact  that  Christ  is 
the  son  of  deos  TraTrjp  TravroKparaip,  is  true  to  the 
real  interest  of  Marcion's  opponents,  even  without 
mentioning  the  Old  Testament.  It  should  be 
noticed  too  that  in  the  reference  to  the  birth  from 
a  virgin,  and  especially  to  the  session  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  there  is  clearly  implied  the 
acceptance  of  Old  Testament  prophecy,  for  both 
of  these  events  were  prominent  among  the  mes- 
sianic prophecies  in  current  use  at  that  time. 

Of  course  R  might  have  been  made  much  more 
elaborate,  and  some  of  the  tenets  of  Marcion 
might  have  been  met  in  more  explicit  terms. 
But  the  creed  was  intended  for  use  as  a  baptis- 
mal symbol,  and  therefore  was  necessarily  made 


172  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

simple,  brief,  and  compact,  that  it  might  be  easily 
learned  and  repeated,  and  was  naturally  phrased 
in  positive  not  negative  form.  It  is  difficult  to 
see  how  Marcion's  positions,  so  far  as  they  were 
of  practical,  not  merely  speculative,  interest,  could 
have  been  more  effectively  repudiated  in  such  a 
baptismal  symbol  than  they  actually  are.  Kat- 
tenbusch  says  that  R  "  ist  nicht  antithetisch  ge- 
dacht,  sondern  lediglich  thetisch  "  (II.  p.  327).  If 
he  means  by  this  only  that  R  is  phrased  in  posi- 
tive not  negative  form,  of  course  he  is  right.  But 
if  he  means,  as  he  evidently  does,  that  R  was 
constructed  without  any  regard  to  heresy,  it  is 
another  matter  altogether.  He  continues  "  Weder 
die  Einheit  Gottes,  noch  seine  Schopferstellung 
werden  betont,  so  unzweifelhaft  sie  in  ihm  mit- 
gedacht  und,  wenn  man  den  ersten  Artikel  un- 
befangen  uberlegt,  auch  ausgedriickt."  Why 
emphasis  upon  the  unity  of  God,  and  upon  crea- 
tion, should  make  R  any  more  truly  "  antithet- 
isch" than  it  is  now  it  is  difficult  to  see.  A 
symbol  directed  against  Gnosticism  would  natur- 
ally have  borne  a  more  theological  character  than 
R  has,  but  Marcionism  was  a  practical  not  a  spec- 
ulative system,  and  is  fully  met  by  the  simple 
but  pregnant  statements  of  R.1 

i  Harnack  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  R  is  too  simple  and 
untheological  to  have  been  framed  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics 
(Chronologie  der  altchristlichen  Litteratur,  vol.  I.  p.  529),  but  he  seems 


HISTORICAL  INTERPRETATION  173 

In  a  regula  Jidei,  moreover,  designed  as  a  standard 
and  test  of  orthodoxy,  something  else,  both  in  form 
and  content,  might  perhaps  have  been  expected, 
but  I  am  not  maintaining  that  R  was  framed  as  a 
regula  fidei.  I  hold  that  it  was  originally  intended 
as  a  baptismal  symbol  pure  and  simple.  The  only 
question  is  whether  the  impulse  which  led  to  its 
composition  was  or  was  not  due  to  the  prevalence 
of  error  —  to  the  conviction  that  it  was  impor- 
tant to  impress  upon  candidates  for  baptism  par- 
ticularly those  facts  and  truths  which  were  most 
widely  doubted  or  denied  within  circles  that  called 
themselves  Christian.  Those  who  think  not  must 
answer  the  following  questions  : 

First,  why  are  so  many  things  omitted  in  the 
original  text  of  R  which  constituted  an  essential 
part  of  the  faith  of  the  church  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries,  while  other  things  are  mentioned 
which  are  less  important  in  themselves  and  bulk 
far  less  largely  in  the  Christian  literature  of  the 
period  ?  Secondly,  how  does  it  happen  that  all 
the  views  of  Marcion  which  were  most  offensive 
to  the  church  at  large  are  ruled  out  by  R  ?  And 
thirdly,  what  was  it  that  made  such  a  baptismal 
symbol  necessary  in  the  second  century  when  the 
church  up  to  that  time  had  got  on  without  any- 

not  to  have  considered  the  possibility  of  its  having  been  directed 
against  Marcion.  As  a  matter  of  fact  Marcionism  was  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  Gnosticism,  and  R  fills  all  the  requirements  of  an 
anti-Marcionitic  baptismal  confession. 


174  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

thing  of  the  kind  ?  Most  scholars  that  have  dealt 
with  the  Apostles'  creed  have  evidently  quite 
failed  to  realize  the  gravity  of  this  last  question. 
It  was  no  light  thing  for  a  church  to  adopt  a 
baptismal  symbol  when  nothing  of  the  kind  had 
existed  before.  Why  should  it  suddenly  find  the 
formula  of  baptism  which  had  answered  for  some 
generations  insufficient  ?  It  would  seem  that  the 
composition  of  R  is  just  such  an  event  as  needs  a 
crisis  like  that  which  Marcion  precipitated  to  ex- 
plain it.  That  Kattenbusch  and  others,  who  put 
the  composition  of  R  as  early  as  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century,  or  even  earlier,  should  take 
the  position  they  do  is  not  perhaps  surprising,  but 
that  Harnack,  who  recognizes  so  clearly  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  crisis  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  and  who  puts  the  composition  of  R  as 
late  as  140  or  150,  should  still  maintain  that  R 
was  not  called  forth  by  false  teaching  of  any  kind 
is  very  strange. 


THE  BAPTISMAL  FORMULA  175 


VI 

The  Old  Koman  Symbol  and  the  Baptismal 
Formula. 

Christian  baptism  was  an  outgrowth  of  the 
baptism  practised  by  John  the  Baptist.  John's 
baptism  was  simply  a  symbolic  ceremony  sug- 
gested undoubtedly  by  the  various  baptisms  or  rites 
of  purification  which  were  prevalent  among  the 
Jews,  and  was  employed  with  the  purpose  of  im- 
pressing vividly  upon  his  hearers  the  need  of  that 
purification  of  life  which  he  was  preaching  and  of 
committing  them  by  their  own  voluntary  act  to 
the  effort  to  make  the  desired  amendment.  We 
have  no  record  in  the  synoptic  gospels  that  Jesus 
himself  ever  baptized,  or  that  baptism  was  per- 
formed during  his  lifetime  by  his  disciples.  But 
it  is  distinctly  stated  in  John  IV.  2  that  though 
Jesus  himself  did  not  baptize,  his  disciples  did,  and 
the  naturalness  of  the  rite  in  the  light  of  John's 
baptism,  and  its  general  prevalence  in  the  aposto- 
lic church  confirm  the  report  and  make  it  practi- 
cally certain  that  the  rite  was  not  introduced  as 
an  innovation  after  Jesus'  departure.  But  if 
practised  during  his  lifetime  by  his  disciples  it 
is   altogether   probable,   in    view  of   his  uniform 


176  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

policy  touching  the  announcement  of  his  Messiah- 
ship,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  long 
before  even  his  own  disciples  believed  him  to  be 
the  Messiah,  that  baptism  had  the  usual  Johan- 
nine  form,  and  that  it  was  not  a  baptism  into  or 
in  his  own  name ;  that  it  was  in  fact  simply  a 
continuation  of  the  practice  of  John  with  the 
same  purpose  of  impressing  the  need  of  moral 
and  religious  reformation  in  view  of  the  approach- 
ing kingdom,  and  of  committing  others  to  such 
reformation. 

But  after  the  departure  of  Jesus  conditions 
were  changed,  and  if  baptism  was  continued  at 
all  it  was  not  unnatural  that  it  should  take  on  a 
new  significance.  According  to  Acts  II.  38  seq., 
the  converts  secured  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
were  baptized,  and  more  than  that,  they  were 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  —  the  first 
time,  so  far  as  we  know,  that  his  name  was  con- 
nected with  the  rite.  This  did  not  mean  that  it 
ceased  to  be  a  baptism  of  repentance,  but  it  did 
mean  that  the  repentance  to  which  it  gave  ex- 
pression was  based  upon  and  due  to  the  recogni- 
tion that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  being  primarily 
repentance  for  the  terrible  crime  committed  by 
the  Jewish  people  in  putting  Jesus  to  death.  It 
was  most  natural  that  a  ceremony  which  had 
come  into  use  among  Jesus'  disciples  during  his 
lifetime  as  a  symbol  of  repentance  on  the  part 


THE  BAPTISMAL  FORMULA  177 

of  those  who  wished  to  prepare  themselves  for 
the  coming  of  the  kingdom,  should  after  his  death 
be  regarded  as  a  means  of  declaring  one's  belief  in 
his  Messiahship  —  the  fundamental  truth  upon 
which  his  disciples  laid  all  the  emphasis  after 
his  departure  —  and  should  thus  become  a  symbol 
not  simply  of  repentance  but  of  acceptance  of 
Jesus  as  the  Christ.  And  so  we  find  that  the 
Christian  formula,  "  Into  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ "  or  "  of  the  Lord  Jesus/'  which  we  first 
hear  of  in  connection  with  Pentecost,  was  in  com- 
mon use  in  the  time  of  Paul,  and  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  it  was  in  common  use  from  the  day 
of  Pentecost  on. 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  Christian  baptism 
was  instituted  by  Christ  himself  after  his  resur- 
rection. According  to  the  account  in  Matt. 
XXVIII.  19,  he  commanded  his  eleven  apostles, 
as  he  was  upon  the  point  of  leaving  them  finally, 
to  "  go  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; "  while  according  to 
the  account  in  the  appendix  of  Mark's  gospel,  he 
said  to  them  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that 
disbelieveth  shall  be  condemned."  But  the  his- 
toric accuracy  of  these  passages  is  beset  with 
serious   difficulties.      Of   the   appendix   of   Mark 

12 


178  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

it  is  unnecessary  to  speak.  It  is  simply  a  late 
compilation  and  has  no  independent  authority. 
The  passage  in  Matthew  therefore  stands  alone. 
There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  questioning  the 
authenticity  of  vs.  19a,  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  make 
disciples  of  all  the  nations,''  for  it  finds  confirma- 
tion in  Acts  I.  8  (cf.  also  X.  42) ;  but  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse,  "  baptizing  them  into  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  we  cannot  be  so  sure,  as  appears  from 
the  following  considerations  : 

In  the  first  place  the  reference  to  baptism  is 
wanting  both  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Acts,  where  other  post-resurrection 
utterances  of  Christ  are  recorded.  It  is  true  that 
the  words  are  found  in  all  the  manuscripts  cover- 
ing the  conclusion  of  Matthew,  and  there  is  there- 
fore no  support  in  textual  criticism  for  their 
omission.  But  even  if  it  be  assumed  that  they 
constituted  an  integral  part  of  the  Gospel,  it 
is  still  uncertain  whether  they  were  uttered  by 
Christ,  for  the  evidence  of  Matthew  alone  unsup- 
ported by  any  other  Gospel  is  inconclusive. 

Still  further,  the  command  respecting  baptism 
seems  out  of  line  with  Christ's  general  course  as 
indicated  in  the  Gospels.  He  was  concerned  all 
the  time  with  the  spiritual  and  the  ethical,  and 
had  very  little  to  say  about  the  external  and  formal, 
and  laid  absolutely  no  stress  upon  it.     He  did  not 


THE  BAPTISMAL  FORMULA  179 

commonly  speak  and  act  as  if  he  had  in  mind  the 
foundation  of  a  visible  society  or  church  with  its 
outward  conditions  of  membership ;  and  that  at 
the  end  he  should  give  to  a  formal  rite,  to  which 
he  seems  to  have  paid  no  attention  during  his 
ministry,  so  prominent  a  place,  making  its  admin- 
istration a  part  of  the  permanent  and  constant 
duty  of  the  apostles,  is  very  surprising. 

Again  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  I.  17  that  Christ  sent 
him  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  gospel  —  a 
statement  not  easy  to  understand  in  one  who 
claimed  so  strenuously  to  be  on  an  equality  with  the 
older  apostles,  if  Christ  gave  baptism  so  promi- 
nent a  place  as  is  given  it  in  Matt.  XXVIII.  19, 
and  laid  upon  the  Eleven  the  specific  injunction 
quoted  there.  It  would  seem,  if  that  injunction  be 
authentic,  that  baptizing  must  have  been  regarded 
as  a  very  important  part  of  every  apostle's  work, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  Paul  could  speak  of 
it  so  slightingly,  or  at  any  rate  with  such  in- 
difference. 

And  when  we  consider  the  baptismal  formula 
enjoined  by  Christ,  according  to  Matt.  XXVIII. 
19,  the  difficulty  increases.  The  collocation 
"  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit "  sounds  strange 
on  Christ's  lips,  and  suggests  a  conception  of 
baptism  entirely  foreign  to  the  thought  of  his 
immediate  disciples,  and  equally  foreign  to  the 
thought  of  Paul,  whose  idea  of  baptism  seems  in 


180  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

harmony  only  with  the  use  of  a  single  name,  the 
name  of  Christ,  in  the  formula. 

There  is  moreover  no  sign  that  the  triune  for- 
mula was  ever  employed  in  the  apostolic  age.  So 
far  as  our  sources  enable  us  to  judge,  baptism  in 
the  earliest  days  was  commonly  into  the  name  of 
Christ  without  mention  of  God  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Thus  we  have  "  Into  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ "  in  Acts  II.  38,  X.  48  ;  "Into  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus"  in  Acts  VIII.  16,  XIX.  5;  "Into 
Christ  Jesus  "  in  Rom.  VI.  3  ;  "  Into  Christ "  in 
Gal.  III.  27;  "Into  the  name  of  the  Lord"  in 
Did.  XL  ;  Hermas,  Vis.  III.  7,  3 ;  "  Into  the  death 
of  the  Lord  "  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  VII.  25 
(a  passage  based  upon  Did,  XL),  and  Apostolic 
Canons,  50 ;  "  Into  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God  " 
in  Hermas,  Sim.  IX.  13, 16,  17.  Compare  also  Col. 
II.  2 ;  1  Cor.  I.  13, 15 ;  X.  2  ;  XII.  13;  Barnabas  11. 
There  is  no  reference  to  the  triune  formula  in  the 
literature  of  the  apostolic  or  sub-apostolic  age, 
except  in  Matt.  XXVIII.  19  and  in  the  Didache, 
chap.  7.  The  formula  was  in  common  use  before 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  but  there  were 
many  Christians  even  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  and  some  at  the  very  end  of  the 
fourth  who  refused  to  use  it  and  insisted  on  bap- 
tizing in  the  name  of  Christ  alone,  and  their 
attitude  is  difficult  to  explain  unless  they  were 
following  an  earlier  custom  which  the  church  at 


THE  BAPTISMAL   FORMULA  181 

large  had  outgrown.  Compare  Cyprian's  Epistle  to 
Jubaianus  (No.  73) ;  Pseudo-Cyprian,  De  Rebap- 
tismate,  1,  6,  7 ;  Apostolic  Canons,  51,  which  finds  it 
necessary  to  forbid  the  use  of  any  but  the  triune 
formula  ;  and  Ambrose,  De  Spiritu  Sando,  bk.  I. 
chap.  3,  who  defends  the  validity  of  the  shorter 
formula. 

When  and  how  the  triune  formula  arose,  if  it 
was  not  enjoined  by  Christ  under  the  circum- 
stances described  in  Matthew,  we  do  not  know. 
From  the  simple  formula  "  Into  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ"  the  step  is  a  long  one  to  the  formula 
"  Into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  But  it  is  possible  that 
there  was  an  intermediate  formula  in  which  the 
names  of  God,  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  were  used.  Such  a  formula  we  find  em- 
ployed by  Paul  in  the  familiar  benediction  of 
2  Cor.  XIII.  13  — "The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  love  of  God  and  the  communion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  be  with  you  all" — which  is 
not  the  same  as  "  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit," 
though  commonly  treated  as  the  same.  Still 
more  significantly  we  find  a  similar  formula  given 
twice  by  Justin  Martyr  in  connection  with  his 
account  of  Christian  baptism  in  his  first  Apology, 
chap.  61  (iif  dvofJLaros  yap  rov  Trarpos  tcdv  o\cov 
kol  Be&TTorov  0eov,  /cat  tov  crcoTrjpos  rjfjicop  'Irjcrov 
XpicTTov  kolI  TrvevfjLOLTos  dytov.     And    later  in  the 


182  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

same  chapter:  to  TovTraTpbs  tcop  okcov  /cat  hecnroTov 
9eov  ovopa.  .  .  /cat  iir*  oi/d/utaros  Se  'irjcrov  Xpio~Tov, 
tov  (TTCLVpaiOivTos  iirl  Hovtlov  Tlikarov,  /cat  eV 
oz/duaro?  irvevfJiaTOS   dyiov). 

The  collocation  "  God,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit"  is  much  commoner  in  the  litera- 
ture of  the  late  first  and  early  second  centuries 
than  "  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit "  (cf .  Jude 
20,  21  ;  Ignatius,  Eph.  9  ;  Martyrdom  of  Poly  carp, 
14,  22  ;  Justin  Martyr,  Apology,  I.  67),  and  that 
it  was  the  current  formula,  at  any  rate  in  Home, 
would  seem  to  be  indicated  not  only  by  its  occur- 
rence in  Justin's  Apology,  but  also  by  Clement's 
frequent  and  exclusive  use  of  it  in  different  con- 
nections (compare  chap.  46  :  rj  ovx}  eva  6ebv  ixo^ev 
/cat  eva  'Kpurrbp  /cat  ev  irvevpua  Trjs  xaPLT0<*  T0 
ei<xv0ev  i(f>9  ^ua? ;  chap.  58 :  £77  yap  6  0ebs  /cat 
£77  6  KvpLos  lrjcrovs  Xptcrro?  /cat  to  irvevjxa  to  ayiov 
k.  t.  X.     Compare  also  chap.  16  and  42).1 

The  rise  of  such  a  threefold  formula  it  is  not 
difficult  to  understand.  The  conversion  of  the 
Jews  to  Christianity  meant  only  their  accept- 
ance of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  so  their  bap- 

1  Reference  may  also  be  made  in  this  connection  to  the  third 
century  Didascalia,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  twelve  apostles 
being  assembled  in  Jerusalem  composed  the  said  Didascalia  with 
the  purpose  of  guarding  against  heresy,  and  directed  that  Christians 
should  worship  "  God  Almighty  and  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Spirit"  (see  Didascalia  Apostolorum  Syriace,  ed.  Lagarde,  p.  102; 
Zahn  in  the  Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,  1896,  p.  23 ;  and  Funk,  Die 
Apostolischen  Konstitutionen,  p.  61). 


THE  BAPTISMAL  FORMULA  183 

tism  into  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  was  a  full  and 
adequate  profession  of  their  Christian  faith.  The 
God  of  the  Christians  was  their  God,  and  no  con- 
fession of  their  belief  in  him  was  needed.  But 
when  the  gospel  went  to  the  heathen  the  case  was 
different.  Their  acceptance  of  Christianity  meant 
the  acceptance  of  the  one  God  of  the  Christians,  a 
God  commonly  hitherto  unknown  to  them.  And 
hence  it  would  be  quite  natural  for  the  custom  to 
grow  up  of  having  the  new  convert  declare  his 
belief  in  the  Christian  God,  as  well  as  in  Christ,  in 
the  very  act  of  baptism. 

The  mention  of  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
natural  enough  in  connection  with  baptism  both 
on  Jewish  and  Gentile  soil,  for  Christ's  baptism  was 
thought  of  from  the  beginning  as  a  baptism  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  whom  he  had  promised  to  bestow  upon 
his  disciples  after  his  departure.  (Cf.  Matt.  III. 
11,  Mark  I.  8,  Luke  III.  16,  John  I.  26,  33,  Acts 
I.  5,  XIX.  1  seq. ;  and  compare  also  Acts  VIII. 
15  seq.,  IX.  17,  X.  44  seq.)  And  so  the  addition 
of  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whatever  the  con- 
ception of  the  Spirit  might  be,  would  not  be  strange 
at -any  time.  But  inasmuch  as  we  find  no  trace 
of  its  use  in  the  baptismal  formula  either  by  the 
early  Jewish  Christians  or  by  Paul,  it  seems  likely 
that  it  first  came  into  currency  somewhat  later  in 
the  gentile  or  world  church,  Paul's  formula  of 
benediction  perhaps  contributing  to  it. 


184  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

There  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  it  was 
upon  this  threefold  baptismal  formula  ("  God, 
Jesus  Christ,  and  Holy  Spirit")  that  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  was  based,  rather  than  upon  the 
triune  formula  of  Matthew  and  the  Didache.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  the  formula  was  apparently  in 
use  in  Rome  in  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  that  is 
just  about  or  not  long  before  the  time  that  the 
symbol  was  composed.  In  the  second  place  the 
phrase  7rvevfia  ayiov,  which  occurs  in  R,  suggests 
Justin's  formula  rather  than  that  of  Matthew  and 
the  Didache,  for  Justin  reads  wvevfxa  ay  lop  in  his 
statements  of  the  baptismal  formula,  while  Mat- 
thew and  the  Didache  both  read  to  ayiov  irvev^a. 
In  the  third  place  the  order  of  the  words  in  the 
first  and  second  articles  of  R  is  easier  to  explain 
if  R  was  based  on  the  formula  of  Justin  than  if 
it  was  based  on  the  Matthew  formula.  If  R 
were  based  on  the  latter  we  should  expect  6ebv 
TravTOKpciTopa,  a  familiar  phrase,  to  follow  iraTipa 
in  the  first  article,  and  Xpio-rbv  'Irjaovp  to  follow 
vlov  in  the  second.  As  it  is,  the  order  in  R  is 
just  what  we  should  expect  if  the  formula  was 
#€05  kolL  'Irjcrovs  Xptcrro?  or  Xpicrrbs  'irjcrovs,  the 
elaboration  of  the  formula  being  accomplished 
by  the  simple  addition  of  the  qualifying  phrases. 
In  the  fourth  place,  and  most  decisive  of  all, 
the  theology  of  R  agrees  with  the  theology  of 
the  baptismal   formula  of   Justin,  but   not  with 


THE  BAPTISMAL  FORMULA  185 

that  of  the  Matthew  formula.  In  the  latter 
the  word  "  Father "  looks  forward  to  the  word 
"Son."  It  is  the  Father  of  the  Son  into  whom 
the  convert  is  baptized,  while  in  R  the  term 
"Father"  is  used  to  express,  not  God's  relation 
to  Christ,  but  his  relation  to  the  universe.  It 
is  God  the  author  and  ruler  of  the  universe  who 
is  named  in  the  first  article,  and  his  relation  to 
Christ  is  expressed  only  in  the  second  article  by 
the  phrase  tov  vlov  avrov.  R  as  it  stands  ex- 
pounds correctly  the  formula  of  Justin  —  "  God 
the  father  of  the  universe,  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit "  —  but  not  the  formula  of  Matthew, 
"  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit." 

In  the  light  of  these  considerations  it  may 
fairly  be  concluded,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  R- 
was  based  upon  the  former  rather  than  the  lat- 
ter formula.  And  the  last  two  considerations  go 
in  turn  to  confirm  the  existence  and  use  of  the 
formula  in  question  at  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  in  Rome. 

But  that  formula  was  finally  displaced  by  the 
triune  formula  of  Matthew,  which  is  in  line  with 
Johannine  conceptions  and  forms  of  expression,  and 
which  is  perhaps  due  to  the  influence  of  the  Johan- 
nine type  of  thought.  At  any  rate,  it  appears 
before  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  only 
in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  and  in  the  Didache,  in 
connection  with  baptism,  and  in  other  connections 


186  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

only  in  Ignatius'  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians  (chap. 
13  :  "  That  ye  may  prosper  in  all  things  what- 
soever ye  do,  in  flesh  and  spirit,  faith  and  love,  in 
Son  and  Father  and  in  Spirit : "  iv  vldo  koll  Trarpl 
kolL  iv  TTveviiajTi)}  All  of  these  writings  belong  to 
the  same  part  of  the  world,  and  in  Ignatius  there 
are  certainly,  in  Matthew  possibly  other  traces  of 
the  influence  of  the  Johannine  type  of  thought, 
while  the  author  of  the  Didache  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  very  likely  took 
the  triune  formula  from  him.  The  Gospel  of 
Matthew  early  got  into  general  circulation  both 
east  and  west,  and  of  course  the  command  of 
Christ  recorded  in  it  would  inevitably  influence 
the  baptismal  formula  and  ultimately  crowd  all 
other  forms  out  of  use.  It  is  an  interesting  fact 
that  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  the  first  westerners 
in  whose  writings  we  find  a  reference  to  the  bap- 
tismal formula  in  the  Matthew  form,  both  quote 
the  passage  in  Matthew's  Gospel  (cf.  Irenseus,  III. 
17,  1 ;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Prax.,  26). 

1  Justin,  Apol.,  65,  may  perhaps  also  be  mentioned  in  this  con- 
nection. In  speaking  there  of  the  Eucharist  he  says  that  praise  is 
offered  tg>  7raTpi  t£>v  oXcov  81a.  tov  ovofiaros  tov  vlov  kol  tov  irvevfiaros 
tov  ayiov.  But  on  the  other  hand,  in  chap.  67  he  says  :  eiXoyovpev 
tov  noirjTTjv  Toav  iravTOiVy  dia  rov  vlov  avrov  ilrj(rov  XpurTov  ical  dia  irvev- 
fiaros  tov  ayiov. 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  187 


VII. 

The  Present  Text  of  The  Apostles'  Creed. 

The  Textus  Receptus  of  our  present  Apostles' 
Creed  runs  as  follows :  "  Credo  in  Deum  Patrem 
omnipotentem,  creatorem  coeli  et  terrae,  et  in 
Jesum  Christum  filium  ejus  unicum,  dominum 
nostrum ;  qui  conceptus  est  de  Spiritu  Sancto, 
natus  ex  Maria  Virgine,  passus  sub  Pontio  Pilato, 
crucifixus,  mortuus  et  sepultus,  descendit  ad  in- 
ferna,  tertia  die  resurrexit  a  mortuis,  ascendit  ad 
coelos,  sedet  ad  dexteram  Dei  Patris  omnipotentis, 
inde  venturus  est  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos.  Credo 
in  Spiritum  Sanctum,  sanctam  ecclesiam  catholi- 
cam,  sanctorum  communionem,  remissionem  pec- 
catorum,  carnis  resurrectionem,  vitam  seternam.1 

The  additions  which  distinguish  this  creed  from 
R  are  1,  Creatorem  coeli  et  terrae  in  the  first  article ; 
2,  Conceptus  est  in  the  article  on  the  birth;  3, 
Passus  and  mortuus  in  the  article  on  the  cruci- 
fixion ;  4,  Descendit  ad  inferna  after  sepultus ;  5, 
Dei  and  omnipotentis  in  the  article  on  the  session ; 
6,    Catholicam   in  the   article  on  the  church ;    7, 

1  There  exist  a  few  Greek  texts  of  this  creed  (Hahn,  §§  24  b, 
26,  27,  28,  30,  43),  but  they  are  all  translations,  more  or  less  exact, 
of  the  Latin  original.     See  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  803  seq. 


188  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

Sanctorum  communionem  after  the  article  on  the 
church  ;  8,  Vitam  aetemam  at  the  end  of  the  creed. 
Upon  the  interpretation  of  these  additions  see  in 
general  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  874-956. 

1.  The  phrase  creator  em  coeli  et  terrae  probably 
appears  first  in  this  exact  form  in  the  completed 
creed  (cf.  Hahn,  §§  24,  25,  42,  92),1  but  phrases 
of  similar  import  were  much  earlier.  Thus  we 
find  them  already  in  Irenseus  and  Tertullian  (see 
above,  p.  89),  who  emphasized  the  creative  activ- 
ity of  God  over  against  the  Gnostics  ;  in  Augus- 
tine and  other  North  African  writers  ;  and  in 
most  of  the  Eastern  symbols,  including  the  Nicene 
and  the  Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan  creeds.  The 
phrase  may  have  beeu  coined  by  the  author  of  our 
present  text,  or  it  may  have  been  translated  from 
the  last  named  creed  (iroi7)Ty)v  ovpavov  kcu  yrjs). 
In  any  case  the  original  anti-heretical  interest 
which  had  led  to  the  emphasis  upon  creation  by 
Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  no  longer  existed,  when 
the  present  text  of  the  creed  took  shape,  and  the 
addition  of  the  phrase  was  doubtless  due  simply 
to  the  influence  of  earlier  formulae.  See  Katten- 
busch, II.  p.  875  seq. 

2.  The  addition  conceptas  est  appears  first  in  the 
confession  of  the  orthodox  bishops  assembled  at  the 

1  Whether  the  texts  in  the  Sacramentarium  Gallicanum  and 
Missale  Gallicanum  (Hahn,  §§  66  and  67)  are  earlier  or  later  than 
our  Textus  Receptus  is  uncertain.     See  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  774  seq. 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  189 

council  of  Ariminum  in  359  A.  D.  (Hahn,  §  166).  It 
appears  also  in  a  symbol  of  uncertain  date  ascribed 
to  Bishop  Damasus  of  Rome  (Hahn,  §  200)  ;  in 
the  symbols  of  Faust  us  of  Eiez  and  Csesarius  of 
Aries  (Hahn,  §§  61,  62);  and  from  the  sixth  cen- 
tury on  is  common  in  Gallic  forms  of  the  creed, 
but  is  apparently  confined  to  them  (see  Katten- 
busch,  II.  p.  881).  As  there  is  reason  to  think 
that  the  confession  of  the  bishops  at  Ariminum 
may  have  been  the  work  of  Phcebadius  of  Agen  in 
Gaul  (see  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  173  seq.),  the  evidence 
points  to  Gaul  as  the  home  of  the  phrase.  It  was 
suggested  perhaps  by  Luke  I.  31,  35,  and  represents 
probably  merely  the  desire  to  make  more  vivid 
and  precise  the  reference  to  the  birth  of  Christ. 
There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  heresy  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  its  addition  to  the  creed.  See 
Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  879  seq. 

3.  When  the  words  passus  and  mortuus  were  first 
added  to  the  creed  is  uncertain.  Passus  appears 
both  in  Spanish  and  Gallic  formulae  (before  sub 
Pontio  Pilato  and  without  qui,  as  in  the  present 
text  of  the  creed),  probably  as  early  as  the  fourth 
century,  while  mortuus  seems  to  have  been  con- 
fined to  Gaul.  The  two  words  occur  together, 
with  crucifixus  and  sepultus,  as  in  our  present  text, 
apparently  first  in  Caesarius  of  Aries  (Hahn,  §  62). 
Whether  he  is  himself  responsible  for  them  we  do 
not  know,  but  at  any  rate  the  double  addition  is 


190  THE  APOSTLES*   CREED 

doubtless  to  be  traced  back  to  Gaul  (cf.  Katten- 
busch,  II.  p.  887  seq.).  There  is  no  sign  that 
either  word  was  added  on  account  of  heresy. 
Passus  may  have  been  inserted  for  the  purpose 
of  laying  especial  emphasis  upon  Christ's  suffer- 
ings, with  the  same  interest  which  led  Irenseus 
to  put  it  in  the  place  of  the  crucifixus  of  R  (see 
above  p.  95),  or  it  may  have  been  added  without 
any  specific  interest,  under  the  influence  of  the 
original  Nicene  creed,  which  followed  the  symbol  of 
Eusebius  in  mentioning,  as  Irenseus  had  done,  only 
the  passion  between  the  birth  and  the  resurrection. 

Whatever  the  purpose  of  the  addition  the  con- 
nection of  passus  with  sub  Pontio  Pilato  indicates 
that  it  was  not  to  the  life  of  Christ  as  a  whole 
that  the  word  was  intended  to  refer,  but  only 
to  the  passion  in  its  narrower  sense  —  the  suffer- 
ing endured  under  Pontius  Pilate  ;  and  that  suf- 
fering was  apparently  understood  not  as  a  fact 
additional  or  preliminary  to  the  crucifixion,  death, 
and  burial,  but  as  a  general  fact  including  all  the 
others,  so  that  the  article  is  to  be  paraphrased, 
not  u  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  was  cru- 
cified and  died  and  was  buried "  but  "  suffered 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  that  is,  was  crucified  and 
died  and  was  buried "  (see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p. 
890  seq.) 

So  far  as  the  word  mortuus  is  concerned  there 
was  apparently  no  other  reason  for  its  addition 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  191 

than  the  desire  for  completeness  of  statement.  It 
adds  nothing  of  course  to  the  sense,  for  crucifixion 
and  burial  necessarily  imply  death. 

4.  The  words  Descendit  ad  inferno,  constituted  a 
part  of  the  creed  in  use  in  the  church  of  Aquileia 
at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  as  we  learn 
from  Rufinus'  Expositio  Symboli,  chap.  18.  The 
Aquileian  creed  was  a  slightly  enlarged  recension 
of  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  and  is  the  earliest 
known  recension  of  that  symbol  to  contain  an 
article  on  the  Descent  into  Hades.  The  article 
occurs  in  no  other  baptismal  symbol  of  the  west 
before  the  fifth  century,  and  in  none  in  the  east 
at  any  time.  It  appeared,  however,  nearly  half  a 
century  before  Rufinus  wrote  his  Expositio  in  three 
conciliar  formulae  of  the  fourth  century,  that  of 
Sirmium,  which  was  written  originally  in  Latin 
but  of  which  we  have  only  a  Greek  translation 
(Hahn,  §  163),  of  Nice  in  Thrace  (Hahn,  §  164), 
and  of  Constantinople  (Hahn,  §  167).  The  three 
are  practically  identical,  the  last  two,  which  date 
respectively  from  359  and  360  A.  D.,  being  in  great 
part  translations  from  the  Latin  original  of  the 
first,  which  was  composed  by  Marcus  Arethusa 
in  359,  under  the  influence  of  the  Antiochian 
symbol  and  perhaps  also  of  the  baptismal  symbol 
in  use  in  Sirmium  (cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  260, 
398).  As  Sirmium  and  Aquileia  were  not  far 
apart,  and  the  relations  between  them  were  very 


192  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

close,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  two  churches 
had  the  same  baptismal  symbol,  namely  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol  slightly  enlarged.  The  article  on 
the  Descent  into  Hades  may  have  found  its  way 
into  that  symbol  either  in  Aquileia  or  in  Sirmium, 
or  for  that  matter  in  some  other  place  in  the  same 
part  of  the  world.  That  it  got  into  the  baptismal 
symbol  first  and  was  taken  thence  into  the  Sirmian 
formula  composed  by  Marcus  Arethusa  seems  more 
probable  than  that  it  was  first  a  part  of  the  Sir- 
mian formula  and  passed  from  it  to  the  baptismal 
symbol,  for  the  formula  contains  other  items  which 
would  naturally  have  been  incorporated  into  the 
baptismal  symbol  if  anything  was;  thus,  for 
instance,  airodavovra  after  aTavptodevra ;  /ecu  ret 
e/ceicre  olKovofiyjcravra,  ov  7rvX(opol  aSov  iScWes 
i(f)pL£av,  in  connection  with  the  Descent  into  Ha- 
des ;  avaa-rpa^ivra  /xerct  to>v  jJiaOrjTOJv,  both  before 
the  death  and  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ ; 
TeacrapaKovTa  rjixepan/  avairhqpov^ivoiv,  before  the 
ascension.  On  the  other  hand  if  the  reference  to 
the  descent  was  already  in  the  baptismal  symbol 
in  the  simple  form  which  we  find  in  Aquileia,  its 
incorporation  and  elaboration  in  the  Sirmian  for- 
mula would  be  very  natural. 

The  purpose  of  the  insertion  of  the  article  in 
the  baptismal  symbol  we  do  not  know.  It  may 
have  been  added  simply  with  the  desire  to  make 
the  article  on   Christ,  especially  on  his   passion, 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  193 

more  complete,  as  Harnack  thinks  (see  his  article 
in  Herzog).  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  in  that  case 
why  other  items  were  not  introduced  at  the  same 
time.  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
other  additions  to  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  in 
the  Aquileian  creed  —  invisibili  et  impassibili  in  the 
first  article,  and  hujus  with  cartas  in  the  article 
on  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh  —  were  both  in- 
tended to  guard  against  error,  according  to  Rufi- 
nus,  the  one  being  directed  against  the  Sabellians 
and  the  other  against  those  who  spiritualized  the 
resurrection.  It  seems  likely  therefore  that  the 
article  on  the  Descent  into  Hades  was  added  with 
a  similar  purpose.  At  the  same  time  Rufinus 
in  this  case  did  not  know  what  the  purpose  was, 
so  that  the  addition  must  have  been  made  before 
his  time  and  apparently  to  meet  some  temporary 
need,  or  the  memory  of  its  purpose  would  have 
survived.  It  was  maintained  by  King,  in  his 
work  on  the  Apostles'  creed  published  in  1702, 
that  the  article  was  directed  against  the  Apolli- 
narians.  If  Christ  was  not  only  buried  but  de- 
scended into  the  abode  of  the  dead,  he  must  have 
had  a  human  spirit  as  well  as  a  human  body, 
which  Apollinarius  denied.  King's  explanation 
is  ingenious  but  not  altogether  satisfactory.  If  the 
clause  had  been  added  to  the  creed  so  recently 
(Apollinarius'  christology  did  not  begin  to  attract 
attention  much  before  360)  it  would  seem  as  if 

13 


194  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

Rufirms  must  have  known  the  purpose  of  it.     But 
while  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  article  was 
anti-Apollinarian  in  its  interest,  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble that  it  was  caused  by  the  general  docetic  tend- 
ency which  was  becoming  widespread  in  the  late 
third  and  early  fourth  centuries  as  a  result  of  the 
increasing  acceptance  of  the  Logos  christology.  The 
docetism  which  resulted  from  the  Logos  christology 
was  not  the  crass  docetism  of  the  first  and  sec- 
ond centuries,  which  denied  the  reality  of  Christ's 
fleshly  body,  but  a  subtler  form  of  docetism  which 
confined  Christ's  humanity  to  his  fleshly  body  and 
asserted  that  his  soul,  or  his  rational  and  spiritual 
nature,  was  supplied  by  the  Logos.     This  form  of 
docetism,  not  yet  worked  out  systematically,  was 
akin  to  the  docetism  of  some  of  the  early  Gnostics, 
and  was  an  anticipation  of  the  more  scientific  and 
more  carefully  elaborated  doctrine  of  Apollinarius 
(see  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  II.,  p.  302  seq.). 
It  may  have  seemed  to  the  Christians  of  Aquileia 
or  its  neighborhood  some  generations  before  the 
time  of  Rufinus  that  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  did 
not  sufficiently  safeguard  the  reality  of  Christ's 
death  over  against  this  new  and  subtler  form  of 
docetism,  and  so  they  may  have  added  the  article 
in  question  with  the  purpose  of  emphasizing  the 
completeness    of    the    death.      (Cf.    Swete,    The 
Apostles'    Creed,  p.  61). 

But  whatever  the  purpose  which  led  to  the  ad- 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  195 

dition  of  the  article,  its  meaning  is  clear  enough. 
It  does  not  mean  that  Christ  descended  into  hell 
or  the  place  of  punishment  for  lost  souls,  but  into 
the  underworld,  the  abode  of  the  dead.  Rufinus 
sees  in  the  clause  only  a  repetition  of  the  state- 
ment that  Christ  was  buried,  and,  taken  by  them- 
selves, the  words  might  imply  no  more  than  this 
(cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  900  seq.),  but  in  view  of 
their  addition  to  the  phrase  kclL  Ta<£eVra  instead  of 
their  substitution  for  it  in  the  Aquileian  creed,  and 
in  view  of  the  traditional  belief  in  the  Descent 
into  Hades  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  pres- 
ent article  means  not  simply  that  Christ  died  and 
was  laid  in  the  tomb,  but  that  he  went  down  con- 
sciously and  with  a  purpose  into  the  underworld, 
the  abode  of  departed  spirits.  The  belief  in  such 
a  Descent  into  Hades  is  as  old  as  the  first  century, 
and  it  has  a  large  place  in  the  literature  of  the 
second  century  (cf.  for  instance  Acts  II.  31 ;  1 
Peter  III.  19;  IV.  6;  Rom.  X.  7;  Eph.  IV.  9; 
Gospel  of  Peter  ;  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  72  ;  IrenaBus, 
IV.  22  ;  IV.  27,  2 ;  Tertullian,  Be  anima,  55). 

The  purpose  of  the  descent  was  variously  un- 
derstood. Thus  it  was  thought  that  Christ  went 
down  in  order  to  break  the  doors  of  Hades  and 
show  himself  victor  over  Satan,  or  to  lead  thence 
the  patriarchs  and  prophets  and  other  pious  Israel- 
ites, or  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  dead,  or  to 
complete   his  work  of   redemption    and   free   his 


196  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

followers  from  the  control  of  death,  or  to  share 
in  all  respects  the  lot  of  men.  The  idea  that 
Christ  went  down  to  suffer  the  torments  of  the 
damned  in  order  to  complete  thereby  his  expia- 
tory work  arose  first  in  the  middle  ages.1 

How  the  article  made  its  way  into  the  present 
text  of  the  Apostles'  creed  we  do  not  know.  It 
occurs  very  rarely  in  the  symbols  known  to  us, 
not  at  all  in  Africa  and  only  a  few  times  in  West- 
ern Europe,  possibly  already  in  the  fifth  century 
(Hahn,  §§  46,  90;  see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  898), 
certainly  as  early  as  the  seventh  (Hahn,  §  55. 
On  the  supposed  creed  of  Venantius  Fortunatus 
given  in  Hahn,  §  38,  see  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  130  seq.) 

Upon  this  article  see,  in  addition  to  Katten-I 
busch,  Huidekoper,  The  Belief  of  the  First  Three\ 
Centuries  concerning  Christ s  Mission  to  the  Under-  I 
world. 

5.  The  two  words  Dei  and  omnipotentis  appear 
as  a  part  of  the  article  on  the  session,  in  Spain  as 
early  as  the  fourth  century  (Hahn,  §  53),  and  in  Gaul 
as  early  as  the  fifth  (Hahn,  §  61).  Later  they  are 
common  in  Spanish  texts,  but  not  elsewhere 
except  as  a  part  of  our  present  Apostles'  Greed,  or 
of  texts  influenced  by  it.  Dei  patris  without 
omnipotentis  is  also  common  (see  Kattenbusch,  II. 
p.  917). 

1  For  Reformation  and  modern  interpretations  of  the  article 
see  Huidekoper,  p.  170  seq. 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  197 

The  addition  was  evidently  due  simply  to  the 
influence  of  the  first  article,  and  was  not  intended 
to  change  the  sense  in  any  way.  At  the  same  time 
it  possibly  narrows  somewhat  though  unintention- 
ally the  scope  of  Patris,  which,  standing  alone  in  the 
Old  Roman  Symbol,  suggested  at  once  the  Father  of 
the  universe,  as  in  the  first  article,  and  the  Father 
of  Christ.  With  Dei  omnipotentis  added,  of  course 
Patris  can  properly  refer  only  to  the  Father  of  the 
universe. 

6.  The  earliest  known  appearance  of  the  word 
catholic  in  the  article  on  the  church  is  in  a  text  of 
the  fourth  century  (Hahn,  §  45),  which  is  perhaps 
to  be  ascribed  to  Gregory  of  Elvira  in  Spain  (see 
Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  202  seq.).  It  was  common  in 
Gaul  after  the  fourth  century  (see  Hahn,  §§  61, 
62,  64  seq.),  and  in  Spain  at  any  rate  after  the 
fifth  (see  Hahn,  §  54  seq.).  It  appears  in  no 
North  African  text  and  in  Italy  only  at  a  late  date 
(Hahn,  §  37).  In  the  symbol  of  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  as  reproduced  by  Cyril  (Hahn,  §  125 ; 
cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  244)  we  have  eU  fxuav  dyiav 
Ka6okiK7)v  eKK\y]criav.  In  the  Nicaeno-Constan- 
tinopolitan  creed  and  many  other  eastern  symbols 
we  have  the  fuller  phrase  Kado\iK7)v  koX  olttoo-- 
toXlktjj/   eKKkiqaiav . 

It  is  possible,  as  maintained  by  some  scholars, 
that  the  word  was  added  to  the  creed  in  the  west 
under  the  influence  of  eastern  symbols,  or  more 


198  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

particularly  of  the  Catechetics  of  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem, but  it  is  more  probable  that  it  was  added 
spontaneously,  for  it  was  common  in  the  west  as 
well  as  in  the  east  in  the  fourth  century.  It  oc- 
curs rarely  in  connection  with  the  church  before 
the  third  century,  but  thereafter  it  was  in  com- 
mon use  both  in  east  and  west,  and  its  insertion 
in  the  creed  would  have  been  most  natural  at  any 
time  and  place,  for  it  was  the  custom,  at  any  rate 
from  the  fourth  century  on,  to  speak  of  the  church 
as  the  "  Holy  catholic  church."  The  word  cath- 
olic means  literally  universal  (kclO'oXov),  and  so 
the  phrase  KaOoXiKrj  e/cfcX^crta  (Latin,  catholica 
ecclesia,  neither  word  being  translated)  means 
literally  "  universal  church."  But  the  phrase 
was  not  intended  to  mark  the  distinction  between 
the  church  at  large  and  the  individual  church  or 
congregation,  for  the  latter  might  be  as  truly 
kolOoXikt/  as  the  former  (cf.  Ignatius,  Smyrn.  8  ; 
Mart.  Polyc.  16,  19),  but  rather  apparently  to  in- 
dicate the  universal  purpose  or  significance  of  the 
church.  The  church  was  universal,  not  simply 
because  it  was  spread  everywhere,  but  because  it 
was  for  every  one,  and  so  belonged  to  and  had  a 
meaning  for  the  whole  world. 

As  time  passed  and  false  teaching  began  to 
make  trouble  within  the  church  and  to  require 
the  exclusion  of  individuals  and  bodies  of  Chris- 
tians, the  phrase  kclOoXikt)  eKKXrjcrCa  came  to  mean 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  199 

the  true  Christian  church  —  the  one  only  ortho- 
dox church  —  in  distinction  from  all  heretical 
and  schismatic  bodies  which  might  call  them- 
selves Christian  churches,  but  which  in  the  eyes 
of  Christians  in  general  were  not  really  so.  This 
meaning  appears  already  in  the  Muratorian  frag- 
ment, and  is  common  from  the  third  century  on. 
(Cf.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catechetics,  XVIII.  26.) 
This  true  Christian  church  being  a  particular 
visible  organized  institution,  distinguishable  from 
other  institutions  claiming  the  name  of  Christian 
and  more  or  less  similar  to  it  in  character,  the 
phrase  kolOoXlkti  iKKhrja-Ca  acquired  the  force  of 
a  mere  title  or  proper  name,  and  so  might  be 
used,  as  it  commonly  was  after  the  third  century, 
without  any  thought  of  the  original  meaning  of 
the  word  catholic.  When  the  title  was  reflected 
upon  and  analyzed  it  was  commonly  interpreted 
to  mean  "  existing  everywhere  "  and  to  refer  to 
the  universal  spread  of  the  church,  which  was 
made  much  of  by  polemics  over  against  the  local 
character  of  the  schismatic  churches :  thus,  for 
instance,  by  Optatus  and  Augustine  in  their  con- 
troversy with  the  Donatists.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  think  that  the  word  "  catholic "  was 
added  to  the  creed  in  order  to  express  a  belief  in 
the  universality  of  the  church,  or  in  any  other  of 
its  attributes,  but  simply  as  a  part  of  the  com- 
mon and  familiar  name  by  which  the  church  was 


200  THE  APOSTLES'    CREED 

known.  Nothing  more  was  meant  by  sanctam 
ecclesiam  catholicam  than  by  sanctam  ecclesiam  alone. 
To  read  into  the  word  catholicam  in  the  creed 
therefore  a  special  meaning  of  its  own  is  not  his- 
torically justified.  It  is  simply  a  part  of  a  title, 
just  as  to-day  "  The  Catholic  Church "  is  the 
popular  title  of  the  Roman  communion. 

7.  The  phrase  sanctorum  communionem  appears 
first  as  a  part  of  the  creed  in  the  text  ascribed 
to  Nicetas  of  Aquileia  (Hahn,  §  40)  which  belongs 
perhaps  to  Gaul  and  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth 
century  (cf.  Kattenbusch,  I.  p.  108  seq.)  The 
article  occurs  also  a  little  later  in  Faustus  of 
Riez  (Hahn,  §  61)  and  in  the  next  century  in 
Caesarius  of  Aries  (Halm,  §  62),  and  later  still 
in  other  Gallic  texts  (Hahn,  §§  66,  67,  etc.)  It 
does  not  appear  at  all  in  eastern  creeds,  or  in 
Italian  and  North  African  texts,  and  in  Spain 
it  is  found  only  in  the  Mozarabic  liturgy  (Hahn, 
§58).  It  was  thus  common  in  Gaul  at  the  time 
our  present  Apostles'  Creed  was  framed,  but  ap- 
parently not  elsewhere. 

In  documents  of  the  late  fourth  and  early  fifth 
centuries  we  find  the  phrase  used  in  two  different 
senses.  Thus  in  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Nimes, 
held  in  394  a.  d.  (see  Hefele,  Conciliengeschichte, 
2d  edit.,  vol.  II.  p.  61  seq.),  the  phrase  is  used 
to  denote  participation  in  sacred  things,  that  is  in 
the  sacraments  (see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  930).     In 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  201 

Nicetas  on  the  other  hand  (see  Caspari,  Anecdota, 
I.  p.  355  seq.)  it  signifies  communion  with  the  be- 
lievers of  all  ages,  more  particularly  with  the  saints 
and  angels  in  heaven.  The  reference  here  is  prima- 
rily to  the  communion  to  be  enjoyed  in  heaven  after 
death.  In  the  centuries  that  follow,  the  phrase 
is  used  in  both  these  senses,  sanctorum  being  taken 
sometimes  as  neuter,  and  sometimes  as  masculine 
(see  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  931  seq.).  In  which  sense 
the  phrase  was  understood  when  it  was  inserted 
in  the  creed  we  do  not  know  ; *  possibly  in  both, 
as  Kattenbusch  thinks,  for  the  two  meanings  were 
closely  associated  and  often  appear  together  in  the 
same  writer.  Whoever  enjoys  real  participation 
in  the  sacraments  enjoys  also  communion  with 
the  saints  and  vice  versa. 

The  interpretation  which  commonly  attaches  to 
the  phrase  to-day  —  communion  or  fellowship  of 
believers  with  each  other  —  cannot  be  regarded 
as  correct,  for  if  this  were  the  meaning  we  should 
hardly  expect  sanctorum  to  receive  the  emphasis 
which  its  position  before  communio  gives  it 
(cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  944  note),  and  moreover 
this  interpretation  does  not  appear  until  much 
later,  at  any  rate  in  that  part  of  the  world  where 

1  Zahn,  Das  Apostolische  Symbolum,  p.  92,  regards  the  former  as 
the  correct  interpretation  of  the  article  ;  belief  being  expressed  by 
it  not  that  there  are  sacraments,  but  that  in  the  sacraments  one 
enjoys  participation  in  the  "  Heiligtumern  der  jenseitigen  Welt " 


202  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

the  article  was  first  added  to  the  creed.  It 
is  commonly  supposed  that  Augustine  used  the 
phrase  in  this  sense  in  his  controversy  with  the 
Donatists  (cf.  for  instance  Zahn,  Das  Apostolische 
Symbolum,  p.  91 ;  Harnack,  Das  Apostolische  Glau- 
bensbekenntniss,  p.  31 ;  and  Swete,  The  Apostles' 
Creed,  p.  83),  but  Kattenbusch  (II.  p.  931  seq.) 
maintains  that  it  is  a  mistake,  and  that  the 
phrase  occurs  in  Augustine  only  in  the  sense  of 
communio  sacramentorum.  However  that  may  be, 
Augustine's  use  of  it,  as  Zahn  remarks,  cannot 
be  taken  to  interpret  the  article  in  the  creed, 
for  the  phrase  was  never  a  part  of  the  creed 
in  North  Africa,  and  in  western  Europe,  where 
it  first  found  its  way  into  the  symbol,  the  inter- 
pretation in  question  appears  only  some  centuries 
later. 

And  so  the  interpretation  of  the  word  communio 
as  if  it  were  a  concrete  noun  and  equivalent  to 
congregatio  {Gemeinde  der  HeiMgen  as  Luther  trans- 
lates the  article)  is  also  incorrect.  The  word  is 
an  abstract  and  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
participation  in,  or  fellowship  or  converse  with.  The 
phrase,  then,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  a  definition 
of  ecclesia,  as  if  it  meant  that  the  holy  church 
catholic  is  a  communio  sanctorum.  This  was  the 
interpretation  of  the  Reformers,  and  has  been 
generally  accepted  by  Protestants,  but  it  is  not 
true  to  the  original  meaning   of  the    article    in 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  203 

the  creed.  That  the  church  has  a  communio  sancto- 
rum, that  such  communio  is  to  be  had  within  or 
through  the  church,  was  often  said  in  the  part  of 
the  world  where  the  article  first  got  into  the 
creed,  but  not  that  the  church  sis  a  communio 
sanctorum. 

The  purpose  of  the  insertion  of  the  article  in 
the  creed  we  have  no  means  of  determining. 
Harnack,  upon  the  basis  of  its  interpretation  in 
8.  Faustini  tractatus  de  symbolo  (which  Caspari 
publishes  in  his  Alte  und  neue  Quellen,  p.  250  seq., 
ascribing  its  contents  but  not  its  form  to  Faustus 
of  Riez),  thinks  it  was  directed  against  Vigilantius, 
who  opposed  saint  worship  and  so  was  widely 
believed  to  be  throwing  contempt  upon  the  mem- 
ory of  the  saints  (see  Harnack,  Das  apostolisehe 
Glaubensbekenntniss,  p.  32).  But  as  Kattenbusch 
rightly  says  (II.  p.  943),  the  general  phrase  sanc- 
torum communionem  does  not  actually  touch  the 
matter  of  controversy  between  Vigilantius  and 
the  church  at  large,  for  Vigilantius  believed  as 
truly  as  anybody  in  communion  with  the  saints 
and  opposed  only  the  worship  of  them,  or  more 
particularly  the  worship  of  their  relics.  So  the 
article  can  hardly  have  been  added  in  opposition 
to  Vigilantius.  And  in  view  of  the  wide  diver- 
sity of  interpretation  which  we  find  from  the  fifth 
century  on,  and  in  view  of  the  uncertainty  as  to 
whether  sanctorum  is  to  be  understood   of  things 


204  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

or  persons,  we  must  recognize  that  it  is  impos- 
sible, at  any  rate  with  our  present  light,  to  say 
why  it  was  added. 

8.  The  article  Vitam  aeternam  first  found  its 
way  into  the  Old  Roman  Symbol  in  North  Africa, 
where  it  occurs  already  in  the  time  of  Cyprian  (see 
Hahn,  §  12),  and  it  continued  to  be  a  part  of  the 
creed  there  (cf.  Hahn,  §  47  seq.).  It  is  also  found 
in  most  eastern  symbols,  sometimes  in  a  slightly 
different  form  (in  Hahn,  §§  124  and  126  :  tfix^v 
al(x)viov ;  in  §§  125,  129,  144 :  ^oi-qv  rov  fjiiWovTos 
alwvos),  in  most  West  European  texts,  and  in 
some  Italian  texts  (see  Hahn,  §§  35,  37,  40,  41, 
54  seq.,  58,  61,  62,  64  seq.).  It  is  in  fact  the 
most  common  of  all  the  additions  to  the  Old 
Roman  Symbol.  Whether  it  arose  indepen- 
dently in  east  and  west,  and  independently  also 
in  different  parts  of  the  west  we  do  not  know, 
but  the  identity  of  the  phrase  in  western  creeds 
of  all  localities  suggests  a  common  source  at 
any  rate  for  the  Occident.  The  addition  was  a 
natural  one  to  appear  at  any  time  and  place, 
for  the  Old  Roman  Symbol,  when  its  orig- 
inal purpose  had  been  lost  sight  of,  must  seem 
incomplete,  concluding  as  it  did  with  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  flesh.  That  some  reference  to  the 
future  blessedness  of  believers  should  be  subjoined 
was  only  what  might  have  been  expected,  and  no 
special  polemic  interest  is  needed  to  explain   it. 


THE  PRESENT  TEXT  205 

We  learn  from  Augustine  of  the  existence  of 
doubts  as  to  whether  the  resurrection  was  to  result 
in  a  permanent  or  only  a  temporary  life,  whether, 
that  is,  it  was  to  be  like  the  resurrection  of  Laza- 
rus or  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  it  is  not 
impossible  that  it  was  such  doubts  that  gave  the 
occasion  for  the  addition  of  the  article.1  But  the 
article  had  probably  found  its  way  into  the  Old 
Eoman  Symbol  long  before  Augustine's  day,  and 
it  is  more  likely  that  it  was  added  spontaneously 
with  the  simple  desire  of  giving  more  adequate 
expression  to  the  future  blessedness  of  believers. 
The  phrase  was  the  traditional  and  natural  one 
to  express  the  Christian  hope.  It  is  very  common 
in  the  New  Testament,  especially  in  the  writings 
of  John,  and  in  the  literature  of  the  second  and 
following  centuries  (see  for  instance  the  passages 
referred  to  by  Harnack,  in  Hahn,  p.  389).  The 
controlling  idea  attaching  to  the  phrase  as  em- 
ployed by  John  and  other  New  Testament  writers 
is  not  everlasting  life,  but  life  belonging  to 
another  and  higher  order.  It  is  the  quality  of 
the  life  as  heavenly,  spiritual,  divine,  not  its  dura- 
tion, that  they  chiefly  think  of  in  using  the  words 
(see  Vincent,  Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament, 
vol.  IV.  p.  58  seq.).     But  the  idea  of  everlasting 

1  Cf.  Kattenbusch,  II.  p.  951  seq.,  who  quotes  also  a  passage 
bearing  upon  the  subject  from  Chrysostom's  fortieth  homily  on  First 
Corinthians. 


206  THE  APOSTLES'   CREED 

duration,  which  belonged  to  the  Greek  word 
aicovLos  in  philosophical  usage,  soon  attached  to  it 
among  the  Christians  (cf .,  e.  g.,  Justin,  Apol.  I.  8), 
and  has  continued  ever  since,  and  this  meaning 
was  prominent  when  the  article  vitam  aeternam 
{Ccorjv  aitoviov)  was  added  to  the  creed.  But  the 
phrase  never  lost  the  qualitative  value  which  orig- 
inally belonged  to  it.  It  has  always  meant,  not 
simply  everlasting  existence,  which  may  be  shared 
by  lost  as  well  as  saved,  but  salvation  and  eternal 
blessedness.  The  apostles'  creed,  therefore,  in  its 
present  form  closes  with  an  article  which  sums  up 
in  a  pregnant  gospel  phrase  the  future  blessedness 
of  the  saved,  and  is  thus  in  its  conclusion  far  better 
adapted  for  permanent  use  as  a  Christian  creed 
than  the  Old  Koman  Symbol,  which  ends  abruptly 
with  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh. 


By  Arthur  Cushman  McGiffert,  D.D. 

In  the  International  Theological  Idbrary 

A 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

IN  THE 

APOSTOLIC  AGE 

ST 

ARTHUR  CUSHMAN  McGIFFERT 

Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Washburn  Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York 

Crown  8vo    -    -     681  pages    -    -     $2.50  net 

OPINIONS   OF  THE  PRESS 

The  book  is  a  long-desired  boon,  for  which  every 
student  of  the  Greek  Testament  ought  to  be  de- 
voutly grateful,  and  of  a  copy  of  which  he  should 
possess  himself  at  the  earliest  moment.  —  American 
Journal  of  Theology. 

Dr.  McGiffert  has  made  a  valuable  and  perma- 
nent contribution  to  our  understanding  of  this 
formative  period  of  the  Christian  Church.  —  The 
Outlook. 

To  compress  such  a  history  into  a  single  volume 
of  some  seven  hundred  pages,  lucid  and  readable, 
sufficiently  developed  and  argued  to  be  something 
more  than  assertion,  is  a  work  deserving  as  a  lit- 
erary effort  no  small  praise.  —  The  Churchman. 


By  Arthur  Cushman  McGiffert,  D.D. 

The  ability  and  learning  of  Professor  McGiffert's 
work  on  the  Apostolic  Age  and,  whatever  dissent 
there  may  be  from  its  critical  opinion,  its  manifest 
sincerity,  candid  scholars  will  not  fail  to  appreciate. 
—  Dr.  George  P.  Fisher,  of  Yale  University. 

Of  them  all  we  are  tempted  to  regard  the  work 
of  Professor  McGiffert  as  on  the  whole  worthy  of 
the  most  consideration,  both  for  the  sweep  of  its 
treatment  and  use  of  historical  criticism.  .  .  . 
Taking  the  volume  as  a  whole,  we  are  impressed 
with  its  importance  as  a  contribution  to  the  litera- 
ture of  its  subject,  and  may  well  congratulate 
American  scholarship  that  it  has  produced  a  work 
conceived  in  the  modern  spirit  which,  though  per- 
haps less  original  than  that  work,  cannot  unfairly 
be  classed  with  that  of  Weizsacker.  —  The  Dial. 

The  author's  work  is  ably  done.  .  .  .  This  vol- 
ume is  worthy  of  its  place  in  the  series.  —  The 
Congregationalism 

For  a  work  of  such  wide  learning  and  critical 
accuracy,  and  which  deals  with  so  many  difficult 
and  abstruse  problems  of  Christian  history,  this  is 
remarkably  readable.  —  The  Independent. 

It  is  certain  that  Professor  McGiffert's  work  has 
set  the  mark  for  future  effort  in  the  obscure  fields 
of  research  into  Christian  origin.  —  New  York 
Tribune. 

Charles    Scribner's    Sons,    Publishers 
153-157  Fifth  Avenue     -     -     New   York 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


>V  14  1933 


NM13?W?& 


MOV   2  ::  «  3 


NOV  27 


M 


juapfSV 


NOV    3  1961 


WflE31197!2  5 


fflgflffg  mil  1  7  71-2PM    ff 


.OCT  13  1957 


3Dec'£7l? 


tl 


DEC    4  1957 


30Oct'58WJ 


^60c? 


6t*V 


MlZ£ilfc' 


LD  21-100m-7,*33 


105635 


"^C  41 


